Skip to comments.OBAMA IS LEGAL
Posted on 03/04/2013 5:24:01 AM PST by knarf
While researching another matter, I came across this startling bit of legality ...
De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that persons appointment or election to office is deficient.
The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:
First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;
Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such. [Jersey City v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]
Are you effing kidding me?
Really hate the American legal system sometimes....
and a 3 dollar bill is valid if people don’t question it long enough
Yep. Didn’t you know that?
Throw him out!!!
The De Facto President?
Sounds like a good book title.
knarf, is this federal. state, or municipal law?
I've read so much here about his (il)legitimacy, and I can't remember much being cited FOR his legality.
No surprise here. I was posting basically the same concept right after the 2008 election. At that point, questions about his eligibility became moot. With his reelection, the eligibility issue became a non-issue.
I'll look later (or someone may want the ministry themselves ... )
'Cause like I said, I was researchin' something else ... that I still need to research.
Article 2, Section 4 states:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
and last i checked, forgery, fraud, and identity theft were crimes in the United States all punishable by prison terms of multiple years
if he’s so ‘legal’ ... then he’d have no problem OFFICIALLY SUBMITTING his birth certificate and selective service as official documents of eligibility / qualifying papers
It can still be used to ruin his legacy. I'd certainly get a lot of satisfaction if it could be proven to the country and the world that he's a fraud and a liar. Even if he couldn't be removed.
The only way that Obozo is a “natural born” citizen as required under the Constitution is if his father is other than BHO, Sr. That is probably the case and he “may” be a “natural born” citizen. He has never submitted evidence that he is.
This is a stupid dispute. This has gone on so long that it is obvious that “high treason” is taking place all over Washington, DC at the highest levels of government. All 3 branches of government know he is a Fraud, impostor and illegally in this office. The quest is “WHY”? And it is unanswered.
It is certain from his actions that he is a “natural born” Commie B_tard.
Totalitarianism in all it's forms is evil. Dictator, Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism and all forms.
I doubt Obozo was born in Kenya. That was only something that he claimed because he at the time benefited from saying it.
I doubt that BHO, Sr. was in fact his biological father. In my opinion, it is most likely that FMD is his biological father.
There is NO evidence of his birth in HI. None.
His entire “history” is conjured.
But it is certain that he like his minions serve the “father-of-lies”.
He may fool or blackmail men, but God is not deceived.
Any other documents used to define any portion or duty of that office is no better than toilet paper.
But apparently these days so is our Constitution. But that's a discussion for another thread.
The only chance we had to remove him was through the ballotbox.
a.k.a. “Possession is 9/10ths of the law”
If his father is Obama Sr., we get him for espionage, on what he has done (with the willing idiots in DC) them we get for treason
If his father is an American, then we get him for treason, and we still get the idiots in DC on the same charge....
With a special trial because she is so special, sister Nancy not only gets a special "we will let you know what the punishment is after your found guilty" of fraud, treason, insider trading, malfeasance and felony stupidity.
Dick Chaney as well for failing to do his job in certifying the election.
Just a thought.
It’s considerably worse for the office of the POTUS, as congress and the courts have essentially agreed that the POTUS is above the law.
The idea evolved over the years, with highlights such as the Marbury v. Madison (1810) decision, which among other things established that the president cannot be compelled to act through a writ of mandamus.
This meant that from that point presidential power was increased when the president could thwart efforts to *prevent* him from acting.
Then the presidents learned they could turn benign and ceremonial acts in presidential powers, a good example being when Teddy Roosevelt turned the “presidential proclamation” into a means for the federal government to seize vast amounts of state lands by decree, with the agreement of congress. Most of the presidents since then have done so.
Later massive power grabs, including one relevant to Obama, is that congress and the courts regard the presidential pardon as sacrosanct. But more so, that because a president *could* have given a pardon to his cabinet, his VP, or even *himself*, that they must assume he did give them pardons.
Thus his entire cabinet is in effect immune from prosecution, even after he leaves office, unless he renounces their immunity or they commit offenses while remaining in non-protected government office after he leaves, but only for offenses committed there.
And, as we’ve all seen, while a hostile House of Representatives is willing to impeach, the senate is perpetually unwilling.
Now of course they have purchased 2700 armored vehicles and 1.8 billion rounds with 30,000 UAV's, but we still outnumber them.
I actually see this as good news. Given that the “Constitutional crisis” that would ensue were Obama to be found ineligible and removed from office involves the question of validity of all of the law that has been created under his bogus administration, this idea eliminates an important perceived impediment to his removal.
Following that, the laws themselves would be vastly discredited, even if they remain in effect, and the potential for repeal greatly enhanced, even if they were merely to be put to a vote again to put a stamp of legitimacy on them.
Those voting for these things on a “second chance” vote would have to support them on their merits, and at risk of their own reputations, instead of hiding behind the fig leaf of “supporting the President”.
Looks like “Adverse Possession” is now incorporated into the Constitution, right behind the newly discovered power to force people to enter into a voluntary contract or else be taxed.
What a strange world we live in.
or a new hit song? Domo arigato Mr. De Facto!
Obama is not legal. He’s naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. He’s ineligible to be POTUS.
The Defacto Officer Doctrine denies third parties their right to sue for harm because an ineligible officer assumed an office in a manner prescribed for an eligible officer. If no harm has been done, then the lawful actions undertaken by the ineligible officer cannot be overturned by the fact they were enacted by an ineligible officer.
If found to be ineligible, he would have to vacate the office with none of the benefits a retired President receives ... pension, funds for a post-presidential office, secret service protection, etc ...
Does the purchase of 2700 street tanks help formulate an answer?? When is the next Reichstag fire scheduled??
I think it is important for Historical reasons that his legitimacy always have an asterisk besides it in the History books.
Based on the research I and others have done, I am convinced that he is not a "natural born citizen" in accordance with the Understanding and Intentions of the Constitutional convention.
That subsequent legal jargon/practice obscures this point is unfortunate.
I disagree. I was an advocate for a state, (any state) to enact a law requiring Primary documents to establish eligibility to run for the office of the Presidency.
Arizona Legislature passed such a law, but Governor Idiot vetoed it. Other states attempted to pass such a law, but they were throttled in the cradle.
Had such a law been passed, it is conceivable that Barry could not come up with a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate, and therefore would not be able to get on the ballot in that particular state.
A refusal to comply with such a state law would have repercussion across the other states. There is no reasonable explanation for refusing to provide such a document other than the inability to do so. If he cannot comply with this law, it calls his eligibility into question in all the other states.
All we had to do is to get one state to pass such a law, and that very likely could have prevented him from running for office a second time, and that MIGHT have provoked enough scrutiny to demand answers.
It was a lost opportunity.
I read this as:
‘the acts done by Obama are legal - even if he is found to be a usurper.’
It may blunt the ‘everything he has ever signed is now null and void’ discussion but I do not read as nullifying the illegal act of usurpation itself.
There have been senators and others removed from office for not being eligible. That precedent exist.
“Had such a law been passed, it is conceivable that Barry could not come up with a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate, and therefore would not be able to get on the ballot in that particular state.”
Adoptees have their OLFBC sealed and archived by Order of the Court. A court ordered sealed document cannot be used in any Court or administrative proceeding after its sealed.
Obama obtained his OLFBC after it was sealed to use for geneaology purposes only. He had to edit the document before posting it online because it had language on it to indicate it was not a legal document.
The law of New Jersey is not precedent for Federal Office holders.
The law of Jersey a national principle does not make, nor the results thereof a Constitution break. Amen.
The law of New Jersey is not precedent for Federal Office holders.
The law of Jersey a national principle does not make, nor the results thereof a Constitution break. Amen.
I have a vision that includes Hand cuffs and Rope!
It could happen.
Federal lawsuits filed before, during and after Obama elected ...
Berg v. Obama
On August 21, 2008, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat and former deputy state attorney general, filed a complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child. He alleged that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
Bypassing the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the United States Supreme Court. On December 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Berg’s request for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15. On December 15, 2008, the petitioner refiled the application for injunction. Two days later, Berg’s appeal was denied without comment by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Berg’s previously denied request for an injunction was refiled with Justice Antonin Scalia on December 18, 2008. On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009.
On November 12, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Berg lacked standing.
 Essek v. Obama
On November 25, 2008, Daniel John Essek of Whitley County, Kentucky, filed a pro se federal lawsuit in the Kentucky Eastern District Court. The suit was originally filed as a Freedom of Information Act case, but was amended to a judicial challenge to Obama’s qualifications for the Office of President of the United States. Essek sought to prevent the inauguration of Barack Obama on the grounds that Obama was not a natural born citizen based on allegations that Obama was born in Kenya. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove dismissed the suit because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, stating that Mr. Essek’s grievance was the generalized grievance of a voter, not a specific injury that would have granted him standing to sue.
 Kerchner v. Obama
On January 20, 2009, Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit in federal court, on behalf of Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs, suing President-Elect Barack Obama, the United States Congress, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi alleging Obama was ineligible to be president, and that Congress failed to verify Obama’s eligibility. A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing. On July 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Berg v. Obama, affirmed the dismissal, and ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous appeal. Apuzzo’s subsequent request for a hearing was denied, but the order to show cause was discharged. On November 29, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.
 Barnett v. Obama
On January 20, 2009, Orly Taitz filed a lawsuit in federal court, Alan Keyes et al v. Barack H. Obama et al against Obama, with Wiley Drake as one of the named parties. On July 13, 2009, the presiding judge dismissed the case without prejudice on technical grounds, and on July 14, 2009, Taitz refiled a “First Amended Complaint” Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama on behalf of Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Cynthia Davis, Gail Lightfoot, several other local politicians, and various armed service members. Taitz sought a declaratory judgment that Obama is ineligible for office and an injunction to void his actions and appointments as President.
Two of the plaintiffs, Markham Robinson and Drake, subsequently attempted to dismiss their attorney, Orly Taitz, who refused to sign their substitution-of-attorney documents and instead filed to dismiss the two of them as plaintiffs in the case. On September 8, 2009, Judge David O. Carter denied the dismissal of Drake and Robinson as plaintiffs, and granted their motion to substitute Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation as counsel for them, refused to dismiss Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato from the case, and set a tentative trial date for January 26, 2010.
At a hearing on October 5, 2009, Carter considered the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and declined to rule from the bench, saying that he would take the matter under advisement. On October 7, 2009, he released a Minute Order finalizing the previously tentative dates for summary judgment motions and trial, and on October 29, 2009, he dismissed the case. On December 22, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the eligibility of the sitting president. On June 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.
Citing new evidence, on August 14, 2012, Taitz filed a motion in Judge Carter’s court to re-open the case.
The De Facto Officer Doctrine does not apply when raised initially and the complaint is not adjudicated.
994 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999)
PRIETO BAIL BONDS, Appellant,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Prieto Bail Bonds appeals a judgment nisi and subsequent judgment forfeiting a $40,000 bail bond upon which Prieto was surety. We reverse and render.
Oath of Senior Judge Jerry Woodard
In its first point of error, Prieto contends that the judgment of forfeiture is invalid because the judgment nisi, a procedural prerequisite to the forfeiture, was defective as the judge who signed it failed to take an oath of office. We initially affirmed the trial court’s judgment by holding that the presiding judge was a de facto judge acting under color of title and the only means to challenge his authority was by quo warranto proceeding.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, reversed our ruling and remanded the case for analysis in light of its recent holding in Wilson v. State.2 Wilson overruled the previous dictate that a procedural irregularity in the assignment of a former judge who is otherwise qualified may be challenged only through a quo warranto proceeding.3 Under Wilson, a party may challenge the authority of a trial judge by regular appeal provided the party objects pretrial.4 In this case, Prieto raised its challenge to Judge Woodard after the judgment nisi issued but prior to the final forfeiture hearing. Since the judgment nisi is the first notice of forfeiture given to a surety such as Prieto,5 we find that Prieto objected timely. Accordingly, we will address Prieto’s challenge to Judge Woodard’s authority pursuant to Wilson.
The Honorable Jerry Woodard was District Judge of the 34th District Court of El Paso County for seventeen years, from 1969 until 1986. He was Justice on the Eighth Court of Appeals from 1986 until April 1992. In 1992, he retired and requested assignment as a senior judge pursuant to the Texas Government Code.6 Judge Woodard took his last oath of office as a judge when he became justice of the appellate court in 1986; that term of office expired upon his retirement in 1992. He has not taken the oaths required by the Texas Constitution7 since that time.8
Pursuant to the Texas Government Code,9 the presiding judge of the sixth administrative judicial region appointed Judge Woodard to preside over the West Texas Impact Court No. 1. Judge Woodard met all statutory requirements for the appointment. No statute explicitly requires that judges appointed under Section 74 take an oath of office before being assigned to cases as visiting judges.10 We must decide, then, whether the two oaths constitutionally required of all “elected and appointed” officers apply to senior judges assigned pursuant to Chapter 74, and if so, whether the judicial acts of a judge who has failed to take the oaths are done without authority.
1. The Constitutional Requirement
Prieto contends that, when presiding over this case, Judge Woodard sat as a senior judge without taking the two oaths of office required by the Texas Constitution. Thus, having failed to fulfill the constitutional prerequisites to holding office, his judicial actions were void or voidable, including his signing of the judgment nisi forfeiting the bond in question.
7. Void or Voidable?
Because Prieto Bail Bonds raised its complaint about Judge Woodard’s qualifications at the trial level, as required under Wilson, we need not reach the question of whether his actions in this case were done wholly without authority, and thus are void, or were simply procedurally infirm, and therefore merely voidable. Under either analysis, we must reverse. But we feel bound to observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals has held in a similar situation, involving an “alternative” municipal judge who had never taken the oaths of office, that: “without the taking of the oath prescribed by the Constitution of this State, one cannot become either a de jure or de facto judge, and his acts as such are void.”29
Having sustained Prieto’s first point of error, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of Prieto. Our disposition of this point makes it unnecessary for us to reach Prieto’s remaining points of error.
No, he is not protected under this if he KNOWINGLY defrauded. He used crimes to cover up his non-eligibility. Forged docs, and who knows what else.
He is not covered by this at all. It’s only for people found out later and themselves did not know they were not qualified.
He knew, they all knew, and if he had been truthful all of us would have known as well.
His birth name, current legal name if different, place of birth, date of birth and mother and father (as well as possibly nationality) are all UNKNOWN as he has presented no non-forged documentation.
The “Why” I wrote about is the question of WHY no Congressmen, Senators, Judges and public officials speak out about the obvious issues with his abuse of power.
>>The only chance we had to remove him was through the ballotbox.<<
Read my tagline.
So fraud is legal in so far as the fraud is perpetrated by a De Facto Officer...seriously?
If Obama knowingly illegally makes a recess appointment to a labor board, and then that board passes regulations for a year while the dispute is resolved in court, and then the resolution is that the appointment was illegal and is nullified, are those illegally appointed officers still considered "de facto" and their acts considered valid?
If the answer is "yes," then there are no limits to illegalities that can be exercised while waiting for the legal system to plod to its expected conclusions.
Everyone and everything is "de facto" regardless of the outcomes. This becomes carte blanche to do anything one wants with no recourse to stop it.
I actually see this as good news. Given that the Constitutional crisis that would ensue were Obama to be found ineligible and removed from office involves the question of validity of all of the law that has been created under his bogus administration, this idea eliminates an important perceived impediment to his removal.
Hard to believe you’re serious. First of all the premise in the OP is not accurate. Second, the fear of a boogie man “Constitutional crisis” is also false. Why?
WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. It’s about time people opened their eyes to the fact that we in a coup. The only impediment to his ouster is either complicity in the coup or sheer cowardice.
...unless you want to quote Yoda...
There needs to be a civil or criminal court ruling against Obama for some violation of law. There has been no ruling like that.
Ten court rulings have backed up Obama on his eligibility. His attorneys can point to a growing body of precedential rulings in his favor.
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: A spurious claim questioning the presidents constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Courts placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Gordon: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings:: For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers position that Mr. Obama is not a natural born Citizen due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born Citizen regardless of the status of his father. April 10, 2012
Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that [e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.June 29, 2012
Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling on Reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a natural born citizen even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.September 6, 2012
. . . . Ping to # 28, # 31 , # 32.
# 18 is interesting, too.
I believe that statute of limitations for the false swearing which would give rise to a legitimate charge of fraud, has run out in Hawaii. THAT is what I have been trying to tell people since day one when polarik was running around here with his nonsense. HIS lie managed to obfuscate the entire real issue and now it’s over. obama beat it and that is why he is now so damn bold.
The discussion in the main note here; and most if not all of the discussion of authorities in the comments; is all addressed to procedural deficiencies with respect to an office holder--the votes were miscounted; the certificate was in the incorrect form; the residence of the individual was half a block outside the district; etc.
In normal cases, defects in the oath of office or its administration would fall in the same category--in the case of the Presidency of the United States, it probably does not for the reason that the oath is set out in the Constitution as a requisite to the office. That I think is arguable but Obama and Roberts obviously think the oath is a substantive deficiency.
Procedural deficiencies in the process are merged in the political installation procedure and do not affect the ability of the holder to execute the power of the office. There may be in some situations, legal remedies to remove an officer whose installation was procedurally defective but as these cases hold, he acts under the power of the offcie.
All of those precedural deficiency cases are distinguishable from eligibility to hold the office. There is abundent authority including the U S Supreme Court, holding that an individual who does not meet the test of eligibility to hold office who is nonetheless installed in the office is not the legal holder of the office and his acts are void ab initio.
That simple. If Zero is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is not the President. Same as if he were only 25 years old. He is just not eligibile to the office.
His purported acts of office are void. The decisions of the NLRB with his appointees are void. Action of Sotomayor and Keagan as Supreme Court Justices are void.
To be distinguished from things that have happened that do not require Presidential action. For example legislation which passed Congress and was delivered to him for approval which he in fact signed as approved: His signature is void. But, the legislation would become law without his signature even if not signed as long as it was not vetoed. (Some legislation may have been Pocket Vetoed because of the adjournment of Congress before Presidential action.)
And like Sotomayor and Kegan--they are two of four votes to hear a case before the Court; the case gets heard and decided; their participation in the acceptance of the case is procedural and the decision stands.
Distinguished from the situation where they are two votes in the majority in a 5-4 decision--the decision is voidable or void; a 5-4 decision where Sotomayor and Kegan voted on opposite sides would presumably stand. A 6-3 decision would presumably stand; a 7-2 decision would clearly stand.
I will add one other comment. As a result of the resolution of the Goldwater and George Romney eligibility disiputes, Constitutional Law doctrine is pretty well settled that the only test of Natural Born Citizenship is place of birth--a person born within the geographical confines of the several states is Natural Born; a person born without is not Natural Born.
There is no evidence of any nature that the present occupant of the White House was born in Hawaii or for that matter anywhere else. My personal speculation is that he was born outside the US but as yet, there is no evidence.
I read the Supreme Court ruling (circa 1995) on the defacto ruling about 3 years ago, and as I recall Obama would not be legal under their opinion despite what the OBots say.
And the defacto officer would not cover him for prosecution for fraud and a common con-artist.
“There is no evidence of any nature that the present occupant of the White House was born in Hawaii or for that matter anywhere else. My personal speculation is that he was born outside the US but as yet, there is no evidence.”
Federal Rules of Evidence
RULE 1005. COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO PROVE CONTENT
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Thank you, David. Your cogent posts always are appreciated.
Except for the pronouncements by the issuing authority, the state of Hawaii, you are correct. However those pronouncements have proven difficult hurdles to overcome. Triers of Fact have accepted them as valid.
In many if not most or all of these cases where the trier of fact has accepted or failed to rule out the Hawaii Record, the substance of Plaintiff's case was addressed to the argument that zero was not Natural Born for the reason that his father was BHO Sr. who was not a US Citizen.
Since the courts involved viewed that argument as being without merit, not much attention was given to the Hawaii record factual question--no one argued that Senior was not the father; so given that Senior was the father and Plaintiff's argument was that Senior as a non-citizen father made zero ineligible, where he was born was not the issue.
And to be fair, counsel has never done a particularly adequate job of contesting the validity of the Hawaii record. We see lots of loose information here on that topic but what has been in the record in these cases is really not well done.
The Georgia ballot ALJ hearing was a particular tradigy.
The Administrative Law Judge was prepared to give the Plaintiff's a fair hearing on the record and to permit them to make a complete record. Since Zero's counsel did not appear, the record could have been made a complete record which would stand virtually unimpeachable on appeal at any level.
What should have been done was introduce an extensive record of the deficiencies in the Hawaii record making it clear that nothing in any of the Hawaii documents represents evidence that Zero was born there.
Then, hard testimony and affidavit evidence should have been introduced that has zero having told a number of people over the years that he was born in Kenya; his official biography in the early state races says he was born in Kenya. Almost all of those statements are evidentiary--they come in as exceptions to the hearsay rule as statement's against interest which are evidence that zero was born in Kenya.
At worst, in a cureative or supplemental hearing, zero would have the burden of proving where he was born. At best, you should have been able to obtain a decision based on a fact of having him born in Kenya and ineligible on the record; under circumstances where the record of his statements was birth to Stanley and Senior in Kenya, he was not even a U S Citizen at birth.
I doubt that he was in fact born in Kenya. But the point is to get a record legal proceeding on which the legal issue of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office would be before the Supreme Court on an appeal.
obama is a malignancy within the universal human body.