Posted on 03/05/2009 4:03:57 PM PST by AJ in NYC
A federal judge on Thursday threw out a lawsuit questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship, lambasting the case as a waste of the court's time and suggesting the plaintiff's attorney may have to compensate the president's lawyer. In an argument popular on the Internet and taken seriously practically nowhere else, Obama's critics argue he is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as the Constitution requires. In response last summer, Obama's campaign posted his Hawaiian birth certificate on its Web site. But the lawsuit argues it is a fake and that Obama was actually born in his father's homeland of Kenya, even though Hawaiian officials have said the document is authentic. "This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do," U.S. District Judge James Robertson said in his written opinion. The lawsuit didn't even use Obama's legal name but called him "Barry Soetoro," the name he went by while attending elementary school in Indonesia. It's one of many that has been filed claiming Obama is ineligible to serve as president. Robertson ordered plaintiff's attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn't violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn't have to pay Obama's attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
He acts like the constitution came with a glossary. The term “natural born” had a clear meaning to the founders. They saw no need to define it.
Your ignorance, or obfuscation, on these threads (It's hard to tell which.) is an embarrassment to FreeRepublic. The Constitution contains no definitions of any or the terms it uses. Year isn't defined; dollar isn't defined; and neither is natural-born. Everyone knew what these words meant to the people who used them. You, apparently, would rather pretend that since we supposedly cannot know, the words mean nothing.
You might check out MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES 524 U.S. 125 and do a search for the word oxford. It's just one of many examples that I could have picked out. To see more just enter "oxford english dictionary" in the search box at that USSC website. There appear to be pages and pages of links to USSC decisions which reference the OED, but for you the OED is some meaningless distraction. Shame!
ML/NJ
If that judge had any class at all, he would have disqualified himself.
“Your ignorance, or obfuscation, on these threads (It’s hard to tell which.) is an embarrassment to FreeRepublic.”
If only we could get the mods to see it that way.
Forgive my ignorance, but why can’t these types of lawsuits be filed in courts where the judges are NOT democrap appointed or big democrap donors? It seems that so much of the legal profession is beholden to the left and that it’s all a matter of money here.
Sooo...judge..where’s the certificate if this is such a waste of time?
This coming from someone whose only talking point seems to be “lol, ure a newb, shutup”.
Excuse me? I have NEVER told another poster to "shut up". And I used "LOL" to a poster that was being insulting. Just how many names do you have on FR? Only one is allowed.
People have forgotten or lost the basic meaning of some language. When that happens, you get those who argue that a term doesn’t mean what it actually does mean.
I usually don't.
Very true. And it’s usually the same people who tell us that we need to “get educated” who do that.
I am heartily tired of being told that I need to “get educated” on a subject that the poster has no clue about. I’ve been on these threads off and on and think that I have a fair grasp of the subject. And it’s usually noobs telling us that “all is lost”, “move on, it’s moot” and “You’re just like the truthers”.
It is the Constitution that has the ultimate meaning, not the Oxford English Dictionary. The Constitution divides citizens into two classes, natural born and naturalized. The Constitution does not define 'natural born citizen'. Not in the way you define it, not in any way whatsoever. Congress, on the other hand, has defined what the meaning of natural born citizen is - on several different occasions - and their definition is what matters. Your choice of definition, and your conclusion that there are three or four or five or however many classes of citizenship you're advocating today is not supported by the Constitution, the law, Supreme Court decisions, or any other legal source. Other than your Oxford English Dictionary. And you call me ignorant.
I think the problem is where the Plaintiffs live. They are stuck with whomever is the judge presiding in their district. To get a different judge, they would have to show cause why the judge could not rule fairly in order to get a change in venue. That the Judge was appointed by a Democrat President in 1994 and voted as a Democrat would not be sufficient cause, unless they could show -- before the hearing even began -- that he has a conflict of interest with Obama or a clear bias in the cases that he has ruled.
Well, now he has set these presidents by this ruling. He did not judge the case by its merits but by his pro-Obama bias, judging by what he specifically said. He obviously made up his mind before ever seeing it:
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.
The key words are "blogsphere" and "conspiracy theorists" because they show he had read about the controversy from the perspective of Obama's supporters and apologists to the extent of pulling key words out of the editorials written about the cases filed.
In addition to showing his ignorance of the substance of the claim, he also highlights his ignorance of the Constitution, by confusing "native-born citizen" with "natural born citizen."
The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the colonel's satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President.
not only is he in error by his statement, he is being incredibly disrespectful, contemptuous, and patronizing by his sarcastic statement to the Colonel, saying that Obama has "to prove to the Colonel's satisfaction," as if he is the only person in America who has not seen proof of Obama's qualifications. WND has collected 310,000 signatures on a petition asking Obama to do the same thing as the Interpleader. But, nothing underscores his ignorance of the facts and unmitigated bias towards Obama like this one:
The issue of the President's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
On the basis of that staement alone, This case should be, and will be, appealed to the Supreme Court. I would go even further by petitioning the Washington Bar to, at a minimum, remove him from his position as a Federal Judge, and maybe even disbarment in light of the rest that he said:
Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.
CLEARLY, this is a serious breach of ethics for a judge, let alone a lawyer. It proves that Robertson has a personal grudge against Phil Berg, regardless of any facts of the cases he's filed. Justice is supposed to be blind, but not to the facts in a case.
When you read his comments on his decision, you would know immediately that he has no class at all:
http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/barack_obama/
So which of these classes included Thomas Jefferson?
ML/NJ
And you know this how?
No bias in this article.
Not even a very good summary of the complaint.
Because they both sure as hell charged Obama and the DNC for a sh*tload of legal work in the campaign. It's all there on opensecrets.org.
Well if he was not natural born then he would have been naturalized, just as every other person alive when the Constitution was ratified. But the exception included in Article II allowed him to run for president.
I looked. I did not see it. Could you provide a more specific location?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.