Informaciones noticiosas y comentarios.
| Challenge to President Obama's Eligibility to be Heard by 9th Circuit Court | | Print | |
| Written by Joe Wolverton, II |
| Monday, 25 April 2011 09:42 |
|
 Arguments
in one of the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of
the United States has finally worked its way through the California court system
and will be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2.
“I can’t believe it, but after two years of Obama
litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in
[the] Obama case,” said Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a
number of challenges to Obama.
In this complaint, Taitz represents co-plaintiffs, who
include former Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes, 10 state
Representatives, and 30 members of the military.
An attorney representing another group of plaintiffs
in a case that was joined to the Taitz case expressed joy at the circuit court’s
announcement, saying he was “pleased we’re going to have a chance to argue this
issue before the 9th Circuit. We hope they see the merit in the constitutional
arguments.”
Attorneys for the defense aver that the plaintiffs
lack standing: If anyone has suffered damages from President Obama’s alleged
ineligibility due to his not being a “natural born citizen” per Article II of
the Constitution, it is the nation at large and not the named plaintiffs. They
argue that the plaintiffs failed to “demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact
traceable to defendants’ conduct as would be necessary to establish
standing.”
Later in their brief, defense counsel addresses the
critical constitutional issue at the heart of the case soon to be heard by the
judges of the 9th Circuit Court:
Even assuming arguendo, that
some of the purported "injuries" alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III
requirement of "injury-in-fact," the district court correctly held that no
appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by
a court. The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant,
because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over
political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the
Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate.
The political question
doctrine serves to "restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in
the business of the other branches of government" by prohibiting the courts from
deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political
branches.
They continue:
The issues sought to be
raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a
"natural born citizen of the United States" and therefore eligible to be
president as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes … are
to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative
branch of the government, and not the judicial.
The brief of the defense’s case was submitted by U.S.
Attorney André Birotte, Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David
DeJute.
The principal allegations made in the case question
Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President, citing an inexplicable lack of
appropriate documentation that would prove the President’s
eligibility.
In support of their position, the plaintiffs claim to
have evidence of the following challenges to President Obama’s ineligibility for the office he now
occupies:
1. Mr. Obama has been using
a stolen Social Security number since 1980-81 according to Dr. Taitz; moreover,
Obama never resided in Connecticut where his Social Security number 042-68-4425
had already been issued to a Connecticut resident in March, 1977. Taitz verified
Obama's continued usage of the allegedly stolen number via public Selective
Service website information, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and also E-Verify
documentation. Taitz has brought suit against the U.S. Social Security
Administration for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
violations.
2. Obama is not a NATURAL
BORN citizen, that is, one who is born in the United States to parents who are
BOTH U.S. citizens. [Emphasis in original.]
3. Obama has failed to
produce a LONG FORM birth certificate with hospital, attending physician's name
and official signatures, etc. Instead, Obama has produced a SHORT FORM
certificate widely circulated on the internet and cable news shows. [Emphasis in
original.]
4. According to stamped,
certified court documents and a licensed investigator, President Obama is linked
to 39 DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND MULTIPLE ADDRESSES IN NATIONAL
DATABASES.
(http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Taitz-v-Astrue-filed-Complaint.pdf).
[Emphasis in original.]
5. Associated Press reports
from Indonesia show Obama's elementary school record with usage of his adopted
father's name Soetoro, Indonesian citizenship, religion Islam. Obama denies all
three facts.
6. Dr. Taitz has served
President Obama with a complaint five times, but she said the President has
defaulted and failed to answer the complaint thus far. Taitz asserted that Judge
Carter has "defrauded us" [her clients and the American people, in initial
District Court filings]. "It was a clear case of an error by the judge, abuse of
judicial discretion and possibly judicial misconduct. Not only did Judge Carter
dismiss the case; he also used his final order (undoubtedly written by some
Obama supporter) to viciously attack me and my clients."
7. Taitz has presented
evidence and court documents to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith
(R-TX-21), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa
(R-CA-49), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46), and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-4),
among others who have thus far failed to hold hearings, subpoena Obama's
long-form birth certificate, subpoena documents regarding his links to 39 social
security numbers, subpoena his college records which Taitz has asserted contain
fraudulent information, and subpoena documents related to whether he is a
natural born citizen. The congressional cover-up and failure to investigate Dr.
Taitz's meritorious evidence raises serious questions as to whether members of
congress may have been threatened or even blackmailed by the White
House.
8. Multiple cable
television hosts are deriding undeclared presidential candidate Donald Trump for
questioning Mr. Obama's presidential eligibility, raising additional serious
questions as to why cable hosts are attempting to silence Mr. Trump while not
reporting Taitz's evidence — especially if Mr. Obama is ever found to be
ineligible, and whether his executive orders and Supreme Court appointments
would also be nullified.
Every one of the legal challenges to President Obama’s
Article II qualifications calls into question the lack of convincing
documentation regarding the place of nativity. As this author has written on a
couple of occasions in The New American, the history of the “natural born
citizen” clause and the appropriate application of that concept obviate the need
to inquire into whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United
States.
The larger and more relevant (and easily proven) issue
is the allegiance owed by Barack Obama’s Kenyan father at the time of the
President’s birth — regardless of whether that event occurred in Hawaii, Kenya,
or elsewhere.
Essentially, a baby, even one born in the United
States, cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” of our Republic if one or
more of his parents were subjects to a foreign power. In this case, there is no
dispute that President Obama’s father was neither a citizen nor a permanent
resident of the United States, and in fact as a Kenyan he was a subject of the
British Crown. This inarguable fact alone is sufficient to void President
Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.
Arguments in this case are scheduled to begin at 9
a.m. on May 2 in the Federal Courthouse in Pasadena, California. Donald Trump’s
plan to attend the hearing is still unconfirmed.
Photo: AP Images
|