The lawsuits detailed in the enclosed article is the legal move I’ve been hoping for because they: “. . . don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.” The birth certificate was always a red herring. Hussein was never going to be removed, and certainly not on that alone, but maybe one or both of the lawsuits will get a definitive ruling on the Eligibility Clause for future presidents. Should the SCOTUS rule that natural-born citizen means the offspring of two American citizens look for Democrats to claim the US Constitution is a living breathing document. They can’t say that now because they would be admitting they knew what the Eligibility Clause meant but decided to change the meaning without bothering to amend the Constitution. Also, it isn’t likely that Nancy Pelosi will be called upon to explain why she signed 50 Certificates of Nomination: The Theory is Now A Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583 “The Constitution is a living breathing document” is the only possible reason Pelosi can give for signing those certificates without incriminating herself and others. Incidentally, those Certificates of Nomination constitute the only provable criminal conspiracy in the entire eligibility flap. Finally, I’m willing to bet that a lot of influential Democrats will be more than pleased to see Hussein step down quietly. Should he not run because he is ineligible is a lot better for Democrats than seeing him defeated because of his disastrous socialist policies. As an added bonus, Democrats can then play a whole deck of race cards far into the future. Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter? Lawsuits seeking to stop Democrats from certifying candidate's qualified Posted: October 27, 2011 10:30 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements for a president were finished, something new has appeared on the horizon. Or in this case, the court docket. The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter. Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election. "This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party. "This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court's definition of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.'" That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Minor v. Happersett from 1875. "This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States." It continues, "Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama's constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama's natural-born status. "Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent." Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, told WND that one lawsuit was filed in federal court in Arizona to focus on the question of defining the term "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution. "We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit," he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election. Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee. "The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee secretary of state. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama's Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number," he said. Other lawsuits also are planned, he said. Irion said that an injunction obtained through the legal actions would deprive Obama of Democrat Party certification. "Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election," his organization said in an announcement about the cases. "Neither lawsuit discusses Obama's place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF's lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined 'natural-born citizen' as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen's birth. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant," the group said. "LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government. "The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages," the group said. LLF also reported it learned that presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed. While WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation that Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state's election ballot in 2012, there also are other developments, too. WND also has reported on an investigation that revealed a major online court opinion resource, Justia.com, allegedly edited references to the Minor v. Happersett court decision from dozens on documents it posted online. The issue developed when a Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were altered at Justia.com. The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president. That case states: The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn't eligible because he wasn't born in Hawaii as he's said, or that he was never qualified because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship (the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the Founders, with their requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen," disqualified dual citizens. The White House in April released an image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama's claim that he was born in the state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated it appears to be a forgery. The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=360813
The very line in the law suit points out the idiocy of it. Everyone knew Barack Obama's father was not a citizen. Everyone. Yet 70 million citizens voted for him. Apparently WND and Canada Free Press think they were all negligent.. The Electoral College elected him. Apparently you think they were knowingly negligent. Congress confirmed his election without dissent. Chief Justice Roberts swore him in twice without any moral qualms. His opponent, John McCain never raised the issue once- was he criminally negligent also? The RNC never raised the issue once. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said that of course Barack Obama was and is eligible. There is no credible legal scholar, or politician that agrees with you. Face it, for the last 100 years plus, all Americans have known that anyone born in the United States was eligible to grow up and be elected President. How do I know that- like it says- any reasonable person who agreed with you would have doubts- but the vast, vast majority of Americans never had these doubts. This is a nutjob theory- blatently lieing about what the Supreme Court has ruled, and these frivolous wastes of the courts time will go nowhere. I think its pretty clear that these organizations know that, but are pursuing this as a publicity stunt. Canada Free Press and WND? Two nutjob blogs pretending to do news.
Any fool can read the statutes.. Obama's mother was a US citizen.. Nothing else matters. What is it about these brain dead birthers?
Motto of the Texas Rangers: "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow thats in the right and keeps on a-comin. Bill McDonald (1852-1918 )
Which is why Birthers will never amount to anything more than an amusing footnote on Conspiracy theories in the United States.
Your responses say otherwise, since your response to a thorough and substantive refutation of your entire post was to post an irrelevant quote. If you had truth on your side, or really anything on your side besides a few insane nutjobs, you'd have been able to make a substantive reply to SFJEFF. On the lawsuit itself, three things strike me: (1) Notice that the lawsuit was not also filed against the RNC, despite the fact that the RNC has never and will never "investigate" the eligibility of their candidates. That proves, once again, that this isn't about eligibility but about hating Obama. (2) Notice, too, that our original poster NOW says the birth certificate is "irrelevant." Only because birthers have been completely pwned on that issue. Prior to 4/27/11, there were plenty of times he thought it was relevant. (3) The lawsuit will not survive summary judgment. I 100% absolutely positively guarantee it and will take any bet on that. Frankly, after reading the joke of a complaint this supposed "Foundation" filed, I don't know how anyone can get through it without laughing their ass off. They are almost criminally stupid.
I will put up whether my post made any sense against virtually any of yours. There is a reason that most of the time no one responds to your posts. Simple answer though: Everyone who was raised in the U.S. knows that anyone born in the United States can aspire to grow up and be elected President. You and the Birthers like to pretend otherwise, which is an affront to me, our Constitution and millions of second generation Americans.
To SFJEFF: I've noticed that my messages are copied and pasted on different blogs without including my name. I dont know how or why they are selected. Readers may respond on those blogs. I dont follow what happens in the cases Ive noticed, but since it bothers you so much you can do the research. Heres the latest: http://democratic-forum.com/2011/10/28/a-definitive-ruling/
I notice that you still haven't answered why virtually the entire United States disagrees with your post- including all of the people and entities I listed. This is a crackpot theory with the sole intention of reversing the legal votes of American citizens.
