Posted on 03/06/2009 10:24:01 AM PST by pissant
The newest plaintiffs on the scene for lawsuits about Obama’s birth certificate are a group of military personnel, some active, some reservists, and some retired. They all share the same concern, they don’t think that our sitting President has the requirements set forth in the Constitution to be our President.
Many cases have already been submitted concerning the same issues, but all so far have either been dismissed without comment, or dismissed on the grounds of “no standing.” So far Barack Obama has spent close to $800,000 through 3 different law firms to deny access to his birth certificate, and not the Certificate of Live Birth, he showed on his website prior to the election.
In a failed case recently the law firm representing him threatened civil action if they produced the certificate and it proved their point. In another action a sitting Judge had made a similar to the effect of “awarding” damages (lawyers fees) to the loser of the case.
In the present case involving the soldiers, one active soldier who made the declaration he didn’t think Obama had the prerequisites to be the Commander in Chief, was ordered through his service agreement to not talk to the press in any way shape or form.
A Senator Mel Martinez R (RINO)-FL has made a statement as of late implying that because Americans voted him in he should be legally our President, claiming that Americans have vetted the candidates twice already, once in the primary, and then again in the general election. He then flip-flopped on the issue by stating, “federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes."
In yet another stupid statement from a Senator, Jon Kyl R-AZ in an email to a constituent has stated that the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility has been settled by Snopes.com and Fact Check.com. Both organizations are left leaning, and it is ridiculous to assume that somehow they have information that the average citizen doesn’t. His office was unavailable for comment on this horrendous statement.
Unfortunately the Constitution does not provide for an enforcement mechanism, and Congress is making no effort to sign one into law. One has to wonder what Obama has to hide, and why he’d spend almost $800,000 to avoid producing a $10 birth certificate, and why with all the present law suits the US Supreme Court has so far refused to hear even one. The biggest question is why wouldn’t the Congress institute a law to avoid this in the future, unless they already know the answer to this question.
Now you did it, you have me singing the name game song, and that is truly terrible cause I can’t carry a tune. I must admit the cows like me singing though!
I agree- those who riot in the streets don’t run this country. Obama needs to be removed from office for not proving that he is a natural born American citizen. I don’t believe there would be riots either. Everyone can see that Obama can’t talk straight to the press, but instead must rely on a teleprompter to answer questions.
Yep....can't even take his eyes away for a second to look at the camera/American people.
I'm really wondering if this guy is going to make it for a year. I'm thinking maybe 6 months.
Hey, maybe we should start a pool
Oh, Mr. Obama... you are going to be impeached.
The key lies in getting the states to pass legislation to require the Sec of States to obtain a certified birth certificate as proof of eligibilty to be listed on the Presidential ballot.
If that happened in enough states then at the very least obama couldn’t be on the ballot in 2012 in enough states to win.
John
bump de bump.
And stupidly Zero keeps throwing money away to fight this? Surely he knows the cases are not stopping.
In one of his legal filings in response to the Berg lawsuit, Obama’s lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, etc.) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. They argued that revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and the above mentioned risk that “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” The source of that embarrassment was not specified.
That’s why Obama fights the release of his bona fides — “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.” — his own attorneys said so.
“Hussein’s sister has the exact same COLB and she is known to be inelligible to be POTUS,”
OK, I will correct that. Hussein,s sister, Maya Ng Soetero has a Hawaiian COLB, and no one disputes the fact that she was born in Indonesia.
- There is a hospital in Hawaii that has the record or doesn’t have the record of when he was born there. -
Doubtfull. Hospitals very rarely keep records for that long.
And if they do, it's likely to be on paper, and stored off site in boxes in a document storage warehouse.>/p>
bump de bump.
I've seen this claim about a COLB for Maya Soetero several times, but haven't been able to find any evidence. Can you supply a link or cite?
No joke! I was thinking the same thing as you! Obama to be removed from the Oval office within 6 months to a year.
Does anyone beside Techdude say they have evidence there is a Hawaiian COLB for Maya Soetero?
That is an unsubstantiated internet rumor.
He was and there is no COLB for Maya that anyone has seen.
Thanks, I appreciate the confirmation. I won’t use that one in arguments.
So is Hussein’s supposed Hawaian Birth Certificate.
Unfortunately the Constitution does not provide for an enforcement mechanism, and Congress is making no effort to sign one into law
Actually they may have one in committee that will either make it easier to subpoena BO’s records, or harder, depending on whether BO can claim Executive Priviledge to not release his birth certificate:
HR 263 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 263
To amend title 28, United States Code, to grant to the House of Representatives the authority to bring a civil action to enforce, secure a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of, or prevent a threatened refusal or failure to comply with any subpoena or order issued by the House or any committee or subcommittee of the House to secure the production of documents, the answering of any deposition or interrogatory, or the securing of testimony, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2009
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to grant to the House of Representatives the authority to bring a civil action to enforce, secure a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of, or prevent a threatened refusal or failure to comply with any subpoena or order issued by the House or any committee or subcommittee of the House to secure the production of documents, the answering of any deposition or interrogatory, or the securing of testimony, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Contempt of the House of Representatives Subpoena Authority Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO BRING ACTIONS TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) In General- Title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1365 the following new section:
`Sec. 1365A. House of Representatives Actions
`(a) Enforcement of Subpoenas and Orders- The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have original jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy, over any civil action brought by the House of Representatives or any authorized committee or subcommittee of the House to enforce, to secure a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of, or to prevent a threatened refusal or failure to comply with, any subpoena or order issued by the House or committee or subcommittee of the House to any entity acting or purporting to act under color or authority of State law or to any natural person to secure the production of documents or other materials of any kind or the answering of any deposition or interrogatory or to secure testimony or any combination thereof. This section shall not apply to an action to enforce, to secure a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of, or to prevent a threatened refusal to comply with, any subpoena or order issued to an officer or employee of the executive branch of the Federal Government acting within his or her official capacity, except that this section shall apply if the refusal to comply is based on the assertion of a personal privilege or objection and is not based on a governmental privilege or objection the assertion of which has been authorized by the executive branch of the Federal Government.
`(b) Contempt Proceedings- Upon application by the House of Representatives or any authorized committee or subcommittee of the House, the district court shall issue an order to an entity or person refusing, or failing to comply with, or threatening to refuse or not to comply with, a subpoena or order of the House or committee or subcommittee of the House requiring such entity or person to comply forthwith. Any refusal or failure to obey a lawful order of the district court issued pursuant to this section may be held by such court to be a contempt thereof. A contempt proceeding shall be commenced by an order to show cause before the court why the entity or person refusing or failing to obey the court order should not be held in contempt of court. Such contempt proceeding shall be tried by the court and shall be summary in manner. The purpose of sanctions imposed as a result of such contempt proceeding shall be to compel obedience to the order of the court. Process in any such action or contempt proceeding may be served in any judicial district wherein the entity or party refusing, or failing to comply, or threatening to refuse or not to comply, resides, transacts business, or may be found, and subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend such proceeding may run into any other district. Nothing in this section shall confer upon such court jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or effect of any subpoena or order of the House or any committee or subcommittee of the House or to review, modify, suspend, terminate, or set aside any such subpoena or order. An action, contempt proceeding, or sanction brought or imposed pursuant to this section shall not abate upon adjournment sine die by the House at the end of a Congress if the House or the committee or subcommittee of the House which issued the subpoena or order certifies to the court that it maintains its interest in securing the documents, answers, or testimony during such adjournment.
`(c) Representation- The House of Representatives or any committee or subcommittee of the House commencing and prosecuting a civil action or contempt proceeding under this section may be represented in such action by such attorneys as the House may designate.
`(d) Treatment of Select and Special Committees- For the purposes of this section the term `committee’ includes standing, select, or special committees of the House of Representatives established by law or resolution.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1365 the following new item:
`1365A. House of Representatives actions.’.
SEC. 3. ACTION BY GENERAL COUNSEL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Authorization to Bring Civil Action to Enforce Subpoena- When directed to do so by the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives pursuant to section 3, the General Counsel of the House of Representatives shall bring a civil action under any statute conferring jurisdiction on any court of the United States (including section 1365A of title 28, United States Code), to enforce, to secure a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of, or to prevent a threatened failure or refusal to comply with, any subpoena or order issued by the House or a committee or a subcommittee of the House authorized to issue a subpoena or order.
(b) Actions in Name of Committees and Subcommittees- Any directive to the General Counsel to bring a civil action pursuant to subsection (a) in the name of a committee or subcommittee of the House shall, for such committee or subcommittee, constitute authorization to bring such action within the meaning of any statute conferring jurisdiction on any court of the United States.
SEC. 4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING ACTIONS.
(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a resolution to direct the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to bring a civil action pursuant to this Act in the name of a committee or subcommittee unless—
(1) such resolution is reported by a majority of the members voting, a majority being present, of such committee or committee of which such subcommittee is a subcommittee; and
(2) the report filed by such committee or committee of which such subcommittee is a subcommittee contains a statement of—
(A) the procedure followed in issuing such subpoena;
(B) the extent to which the party subpoenaed has complied with such subpoena;
(C) any objections or privileges raised by the subpoenaed party; and
(D) the comparative effectiveness of bringing a civil action pursuant to this Act, certification of a criminal action for contempt of Congress, and initiating a contempt proceeding before the House.
(b) Committee Report Not Receivable in Court- A report filed pursuant to subsection (a)(2) shall not be receivable in any court of law to the extent such report is in compliance with such subsection.
(c) Exercise of Rulemaking Authority- The provisions of subsection (a) are enacted—
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives, and, as such, they shall be considered as part of the rules of the House, and such rules shall supersede any other rule of the House only to the extent that rule is inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the House to change such rules (so far as relating to the procedure in the House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the House.
SEC. 5. GENERAL COUNSEL DEFINED.
In this Act, the term `General Counsel of the House of Representatives’ has the meaning given such term in section 101(c) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2000 (2 U.S.C. 130f(c)).
SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall limit the discretion of—
(1) the Speaker of the House of Representatives in certifying to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia any matter pursuant to section 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 194); or
(2) the House of Representatives to hold any individual or entity in contempt of the House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.