martes, 02 de febrero de 2010
Courts can remove ineligible chief executive By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123843

BORN IN THE USA?

Courts can remove ineligible chief executive

Precedentcited in appeal of California challenge to president's tenure
Posted: February 01, 2010
9:58 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chiefexecutive officer of a government if that officer is found to beineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of aCalifornia lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in theWhite House.


A multitude of cases have beenbrought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics whohave doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he haswritten, and others are from those who question whether the framers ofthe Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's fatherwas a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from beingeligible for the presidency.


The disputes revolve around theConstitution's demand that the president be a "natural born citizen."


Now in an appeal of a statecourt case in California that named as a defendant California Secretaryof State Debra Bowen, attorney GaryKreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that therealready are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court casein which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee forpresident simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibilityrequirements.


"In 1968, the Peace and FreedomParty submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the UnitedStates. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that,according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old,one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as acandidate for president," the brief, being filed this week, argues.


"Using his administrative powers, Mr.Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver,unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of theState of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, which affirmed the actions."

The other is a court precedent inwhich the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after thestate Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution'seligibility requirements.


The arguments have been submitted tothe 3rd Appellate District Court of Appeal in California in the casethat was brought in state court on behalf of Alan Keyes and Wiley Drakeas well as California elector Markham Robinson.


It alleged Obama was not eligible forthe office and Bowen failed to investigate his qualifications beforeallowing his name on the 2008 presidential election ballot.


This case is separate from anothercase brought on behalf of some of the same plaintiffs in federal courtover similar concerns. That case, dismissed last year by U.S. DistrictJudge David Carter, is on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court ofAppeals.


Kreep alleges the dismissal of thestate case by Judge Michael Kenny was in error because the defendants"failed to establish that there was no triable cause of action on thecritical constitutional issues of whether Obama has met the eligibilityrequirements to serve as president of the United States and whetherBowen has the duty, as chief elections officer of the state ofCalifornia, to verify the eligibility of candidates for federal officerunning in the state of California."


The president's lawyers inmany of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that thecourts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibilitybecause of the Constitution's provision that president's must beremoved by impeachment, which rests with Congress.


In one case, the president's lawyersprominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the ElectoralCollege of the responsibility to select the president includes theauthority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified foroffice.


"The examination of a candidate'squalifications is an integral component of the electors'decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after theElectoral College has voted, further review of a presidentialcandidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review isrequired, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.


But the issue, however, alreadyhas been adjudicated by courts, and the resolution is that courts dohave the authority to review eligibility and even remove an ineligiblechief executive, the appeal brief cites.


"Even though Obama was elected tothis office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for theoffice of president of the United States," the brief states. "In 'Stateex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,' after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected tothe office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discoveredthat Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, ashe had not resided in the state for a requisite five years beforerunning for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removedfrom office and replaced by the lieutenant governor," the briefexplains.


North Dakota's historical archives, in fact, document the case.


The Democrat was nominated by hisparty for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, LydiaLanger.


"As soon as the election was over,there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state'sarchives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, itwas revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election inMinnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has tohave lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election.The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligibleto serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," thestate reports.


"We're seeking to bar anyone fromgoing on the presidential ballot in 2012 unless they can prove thatthey're eligible," Kreep told WND.


"Appellants contend that Bowen has aduty to ensure that all candidates in the state of California, for bothfederal and state offices, meet the eligibility requirements for theoffices sought, that Bowen did not fulfill said duty, and that a courtdetermination is needed to ensure that the California secretary ofstate comply with this duty in the future," the brief said.


The original case sought to preventBowen from certifying California's electors for the Electoral Collegevote; it later was amended to correct the deficiencies it identified infuture elections.


It explains the appellants havestanding in the case because court precedent states "a candidate or hispolitical party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedlyineligible rival … on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's orparty's own chances of prevailing."


"Keyes … and Drake … have beeninjured because they did not have fair competition for the office," thepleading states.


Further, courts can address theproblem.


While the dispute has "significantpolitical overtones," it is, nonetheless, "an issue which the court canmake a determination on, because the requirements are clearly stated inArticle II, Section 1, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution and courtsroutinely decide questions of law and of fact such as the issue in thiscase."


"A provision of the Constitution maynot be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people, as thereare specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the UnitedStates," it continues.


"Respondents denied that this Cleavercase had any relevance to the underyling issue … Similary, in 1984, thePeace and Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligiblecandidate in the presidential primary. When the then SOS checked hiseligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was, similarly, not eligible,and Mr. Holmes was removed from the ballot… It this case, we have asimilar situation in that the Democratic Party submitted the name ofObama as a candidate for president," the breif argues.


WND has reported on the multiple legal caseschallenging Obama's eligibility in addition to efforts to raise thequestion at the state and national levels.


Several state legislatures areworking on proposals that would require presidential candidates tosubmit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced inCongress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.


The claims are that Obama does notmeet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "naturalborn citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born inHawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father'sBritish citizenship at the time of his birth.


The Constitution, Article 2, Section1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen ofthe United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,shall be eligible to the Office of President."


However, none of the cases filed todate has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, sothat information about Obama's birth could be obtained.


The White House has not replied tonumerous requests for comment.


Besides Obama's actual birthdocumentation, the still-concealed documentation forhim includes kindergartenrecords, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, ColumbiaUniversity records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records,Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University ofChicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as anIllinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, anybaptism records, and his adoption records.


Another significant factor is theestimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any ofthe documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.




"Where's The Birth Certificate?"billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on theLas Vegas Strip.


Because of the dearth of informationabout Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched acampaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simplequestion: "Where's the birth certificate?"


The campaign followed apetition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of hiseligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent,detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.


The "certification of live birth"posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does notin any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form"document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true"long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as thename of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the onlydocument that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he hasnot permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.


Oddly, though congressional hearingswere held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionallyeligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controllinglegal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.


Your donation – from as little as $5to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore.(Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than$1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, theyshould be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Besure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" onthe check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted,as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographiclocations.)


If you are a member of themedia and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

 


Tags: OBAMA REMOVAL

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios
Añadir comentario