U.S. attorney: Nothing Americans can do about eligibility

WND ^ | October 14, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[RobinMasters]

A team of U.S. attorneys based in California has argued to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that there essentially is nothing the American public can do to determine if, in fact, Barack Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the Oval Office, and if they are injured, at least they are all injured alike.

The arguments were presented in a brief submitted by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute in defense of a lawsuit that was brought by a long list of plaintiffs including a presidential candidate, members of the military, members of the state legislature and others against Obama.

The plaintiffs had asked the appeals court to reopen the arguments because the district court's ruling, left standing, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority."

That earlier brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.

[jamese777]

Here’s post number 3 on Tiger Eye’s 4/5ths Compromise? analogy.
Tiger’s Eye posts:
“It was you who tried to turn an analogy into the substance of the conversation. Don’t get your panties in a wad trying to pretzel your way out of that.
That makes two posts that you have abandoned the subject on to defend your straw man.”

---

Tiger’s Eye wrote:
“You are entitled to your opinion but it was obviously formed around the premise that equal justice under the law is meaningless. It accords well with the concept that some people are only 4/5ths of a human being under the law.”

---

I responded to the above by saying: “Actually it was 3/5ths and are you accusing the Framers of the Constitution of being against equal justice under the law in propogating the Three-fiths compromise?”
I responded to BOTH parts of Tiger Eye’s post: his statement that denying plaintiffs’ standing in Obama eligibility lawsuits is akin to the denial of equal justice under the law like the “4/5ths? Compromise,” AND Tiger’s Eye’s accusation that the 3/5ths Compromise was based on denial of equal protection under the law.

I responded by pointing out that it was the 3/5ths Compromise, not 4/5ths and that it was fashioned by the Framers of the Constitution who Tiger’s Eye should not have accused of being against equal protection under the law.

[TigersEye]

Nitpicking the details of your own straw man argument doesn't bring it any closer to addressing the substance of the subject.

That's three posts where you have ignored the subject to pursue your straw man. Since you can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag ... bye.

[sometime lurker]

no hospital in Hawaii has a record of obama’s birth.

Sorry to get here late, but I correct this one every time I catch it. No hospital in Hawaii is permitted to tell us if they have a record of obama's birth or not. Hospitals may not disclose this information under the HIPAA law:

A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm.

No hospital is going to release this information and risk the fine and prison term.

[Red Steel]

You do a fine job of distraction and make non-issues the issues. You attack on the periphery of issues to confuse the issues. The Amicus Curiae Brief that damns Barack Obama was accepted by the Federal Court, and that it represents a recorded admission of ineligibility, and a confession in open court, and the basis for an action of treason. You sure live up to your Modus operandi to a 'T'.

Deal with it.

The judge appears to have granted some 24 requests to file amicus briefs. How many such requests has he denied? Apparently, zero.

Oh is that right?? He could have easily denied them but he did not.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[edge919]

The problem with your interpretation of HIPAA is that it does allow for directory types of disclosures, and no one is going to prosecute a hospital for confirming what is alleged to be public knowledge.

[Cheerio]

TYRANNY.

[LibLieSlayer]

9th circus... the most overturned court in American History. Good little maoists they are.

LLS

[BuckeyeTexan]

It should be taken as Self-evident that the United States Constitution means absolutely nothing to protect the reserved rights of the people so long as the Federal Governments own hand picked employees in black robes are the final authority on enforcing and “interpreting” it.

You misundersand the issue here.

The government argues that those "hand-picked employees in black robes" do not have final authority in this Constitutional matter, but rather have no authority in the matter. The basis of the government's argument, in this case, is that Obama's eligibility under the Constitution is a political matter falling under the purview of the Legislative and Executive branches of the government. They further argue that the Judicial branch would be interfering in the business and operation of the other two branches were it to hear and rule on this case. (i.e. political question doctrine) Thus the article's headline.

Having those "hand-picked employees in black robes" interpret the Constitution is exactly what the plaintiffs' attorneys argue should occur in this case.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Certifigate -- Meat-and-Potatoes Summary. [Please feel free to add points.]

60% now agree with us, and we are gaining ground ...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Jake Tapper Asks Axelrod About Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605672/posts
[The weirdest question ever getting traction.]

Video: Laura Ingraham; Obama, It Is Time To Release Your Records
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2607196/posts

Birtherism: When no evidence will do in the case of Obama [hurl-alert]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605265/posts
[We’re getting under their skin.]

[mad_as_he$$]

Wanna bet on that there Sparky?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Best I can tell, Jamese777 is the most effective debator the certifigate critics have. But defending Obama’s secrecy is impossible. The main defense seems to be the legal justifications and procedural questions [why aren’t plaintiffs doing this or that?] rather than a search for truth.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I agree that we don’t want a judiciary with the power to disqualify candidates and/or incumbents. But there’s a new wrinkle in this coverup:

Why Pelosi Signed Two Certificates of Nomination
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2585683/posts
“Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility?”

Did Pelosi falsely sign Hawaii’s certification? That is an entirely different matter legally, I would think [although I’m no lawyer].

[BuckeyeTexan]

We don't have any evidence that Hawaii refused to certify his eligibility. That's complete speculation, nothing more.

[omegadawn]

That information has already been attained and attempts have been made to introduce it as evidence. Case and evidence dismissed on grounds of standing. This is really stupid, hiding behind a law meant to protect medical records to hide the fact obama was not born in Hawaii. It is common for hospitals to release this type of imformation to the public, it is not considered “ private information.

[Red Steel]

The evidence:

Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots). The Hawaiian DNC state party left out for Obama's certification that he is qualified under the US Constitutional, which is highlighted in the letter below.

Here is the Hawaiian DNC certification for Obama, which is missing the qualification under the US Constitution and for the state of Hawaii.

John Kerry's 2004 Hawaiian party DNC Certification. Notice that Kerry is qualified under the US Constitutional and for the state of Hawaii.

Al Gore's 2000 Hawaiian DNC party certification. You will also notice that he fully complies with Hawaiian Revised Statutes 11-113.

Enter Nancy Pelosi signed statement... because Hawaii did not fully certify Barack Hussein Obama. Pelosi signs the statement to fulfill the required Hawaiian law under Revised Statutes 11-113.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Thank you, FRiend. Will link to your detailed post. FRegards ....

[Red Steel]

No problem. Just countering the BS responses. :-)

[TigersEye]

Best I can tell, Jamese777 is the most effective debator the certifigate critics have.

That says a lot about the weakness of their position.