Thursday, January 2, 2014



White House nightmare: Eligibility case still alive

Judges still haven't decided challenge to Obama's tenure

Filed on appeal almost a year ago, a legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility remains lurking in the hallways and offices of the Alabama Supreme Court, where at least two of the justices already have indicated an interest in the truth about the much-fought over compliance by Barack Obama with the Constitution’s absolute requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen.
Court officials confirmed to WND today that the case brought by attorney Larry Klayman, who founded Freedom Watch, and most recently hit the headlines for a successful fight against Obama’s program run by the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, remains on the docket.
It’s been fully briefed, but the justices haven’t announced yet whether they will hear oral arguments on the dispute, even though Klayman asked for an opportunity.
The case raises some of the same arguments that appeared earlier in dozens of local, state and federal court cases over Obama’s first term.
They all argue in some fashion that because of the lack of details about Obama’s birthplace, he might be ineligible to be president under the Constitution’s requirement. That is thought to have been defined by the Founders as someone who was born of citizen parents in the country.
If the parents’ citizenship is a qualifier, Obama by his own admission fails, since he reports his father was a Kenyan student who came to study in the U.S. but never was a U.S. citizen himself. In fact, the senior Obama already was married, in Kenya, before he met and married Obama Jr.’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
This case is brought on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are asking Alabama’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.
Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”
Klayman, in a brief, argued the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”
He pointed out that, for example, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires the president to be at least 35.
Of significance to the case is the fact that two of the justices have express interest in the truth of the dispute.
In an earlier case, the justices in that very court denied a petition filed by McInnish to require Obama submit an original birth certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.
At the time, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.
Certain documentation
The “certain documentation” is the result of a Cold Case Posse investigation launched by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Arpaio’s investigation has concluded that based on the evidence, the birth certificate documentation presented by the White House as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility actually is fraudulent, created on a computer and not representative of any official document.
Investigators there have raised the possibility of fraud on American voters because of the document, and forgery on the part of those who created it.
Then comes Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is on the record wondering about the truth.
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Lakin was stripped of his office and removed from the military when, on getting new orders, he said he wanted to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander-in-chief of the military, because following the orders of a fake would, in itself, be illegal.
At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
In that 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
The pending case, on appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court, said the Alabama secretary of state failed her constitutional duty to verify the eligibility of candidates.
Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected.”
The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.