you have the arrogant part down pat. So glad you wasted a moment to instruct us.
Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers' attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president.
In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the conspiracy theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices. Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can't be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can't show they are directly injured by Obama's presence in office.
"It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress," Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote. "Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch."
The birthers' suit claims that Obama is a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief.”
Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military commander by Obama, the alleged usurper. However, West and DeJute say that argument is too speculative.
"The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing," the government lawyers wrote.
Another plaintiff in the suit, Alan Keyes, is a three-time, longshot presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008. Yet another is Gail Lightfoot, an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate in 2008. The DOJ argues that they were not directly aggrieved by Obama's election because they never had a mathematical chance of winning.
"The [lawsuit] does not allege, nor could it allege, that any of these Plaintiffs were even on the ballot in enough states in the year 2008 to gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election," the motion states.
The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in "innuendo" and advancing "a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act."
Those arguments notwithstanding, the DOJ lawyers were pretty kind to the birthers and to Taitz, since the filings in the case are replete with spelling errors, among others. Taitz submitted another purported foreign birth certificate for Obama last week in a filing labeled, "Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama."
The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter. There's a strong chance the session will devolve into something of a sideshow since a couple of plaintiffs in the case are now in a dispute with Taitz and have sought to bring in a different attorney to represent them in the case.
I am not sure that it is ridiculous. Why then was there a Saturday Night Massacre if every instruction of the president to the Department of Justice is to be considered legitimate?
Was it inappropriate for both Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelhaus to have resigned rather than execute President Nixon's instructions? I don't think so; clearly, it was inappropriate behavior for the president to insist that the Attorney General fire the special prosecutor.
Why was it improper? I think it was because President Nixon was trying to use the Department of Justice both to protect himself from Mr. Cox's investigation and to subvert justice. Attempting to use the DOJ as an instrument to personally protect oneself seems to me to be precluded from presidential powers, and even an impeachable offense.
Is it also inappropriate for Obama to use his office to defend his personal eligibility? I certainly find it questionable behavior at best, and I think that the DOJ's Inspector General (or a special prosecutor :-) should take a look at this.
Exposing the radical bent in Zero’s appointees is a start. With their very own words we can show the rest of the country what kind of “agenda” Zero really has.
There are many avenues we can take to educate uninformed Americans. More and more tea parties with distributed pamphlets of the FACTS, for instance. The FACT that mainstream media is in the tank for Obama and DemocRats is one we have lived with for decades. We’ll have to find a way around it. Just as the leftists are planning to boycott Fox News sponsors as payback to Glenn Beck, we must boycott and protest to all of their sponsors.
I believe that there are many people out there, (like one ex-co-worker of mine and my mother’s neighbor and best friend) that just don’t know or have a clue about the REAL Obama agenda because they don’t have cable and only get their news from mainstream media channels. They’re too busy with their every day lives to even question that the news they’re getting is ONLY the cleaned up, pristine, pro-Obama version. You’ll note that none of these outlets reported on Van Jones’ past or comments. Swaying public opinion in favor of the leftist agenda is what they do. Our half of the country has to find a way to get the word out to the rest of the country somehow.
Rest assured, if or when we take back our country, these leftist media whores will be replaced with people who actually DO report the news...instead of the current practice of ignoring it if it doesn’t suit their agenda or spinning it to their leftist advantage.
Harry’s poll numbers are already in the tank, finally...no doubt due to his C&T stance. Focusing on the new zero-appointed czars is an excellent idea. With Zero’s very own words, he will be defeated. He did, after all, say to judge him by those whom he surrounds himself. But we also need to point out which party it is that is filled with these leftists/socialists/communists. As much as I loathe the GOP right now, they still look better “by comparison”.
Zero also noted back in 2001 that our constitution is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps he, himself, was referring to the lack of a clear definition of his very own “unnatural born” citizenship. I am certain that he was fully aware of the coming controversy. One way or another, we’re going to find out just what his citizenship status really is. And if we can get half or more of Americans to stand up and demand that proof, he’ll have no choice.
I don’t know if this is what you are looking for (http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=226).
Non-Sequitur takes that position because he believes the Constitution doesn’t provide for three classes of citizens: natural-born citizen, citizen, naturalized citizen. He doesn’t do it to defend Obama, in my opinion. I’ve argued with him at length on that subject.
I believe that since the Constitution refers to a higher requirement for POTUS that that inherently provides for three classes of citizenship. I also believe that the law is unsettled on the matter of whether or not a person born to one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign-citizen parent is a natural-born citizen. I can and will argue for the position that such a person is not a natural-born citizen.
I usually end my arguments with Non-Sequitur with the statement that we need a SCOTUS ruling to determine if Obama is a natural-born citizen. He has stipulated to me that “Perhaps, we do.” I think he sees the law one way and we see it another, but I think he sees the necessity of a clear definition from the SCOTUS.
Just my opinion ...
Actually I have bested him on this issue while you spent your time attacking anyone that doesn’t follow your views as a troll or an Obot.
The reason I don’t post on these threads any more is the juvenile vitriol that they melt down into and you are among the worst offenders.
Stick to the facts, discuss your opinion, be the cool headed one, let the other guy implode, and if you cannot, learn to be silent while your betters do.
In dealing with trolls or obots the best you can hope for is a draw when they retreat and regroup.
you have the arrogant part down pat. So glad you wasted a moment to instruct us.
Hasn't even been addressed yet. But now that the defense has moved to dismiss then it is a matter for the court to consider.
More likely than not, at least ONE of the 50-plus plaintiffs have that standing, in this post-inaugural case.
Which one and why?
He's given Orly "tips" on filing issues — I can't see why he wouldn't again. Judge Carter is sharp and will stay within his judicial guidelines...Judge Carter's interest in this case is apparent, while granting Orly significant latitude for no apparent reason.
Oh there is a reason. Judge Carter walked Taitz through the process of properly serving the defense only because Tatiz was so inept that she needed them...and because he wasn't willing to dismiss it right of the bat on procedural grounds. Judge Carter, quite rightly, exercised his judicial perogative to cut her some slack. To dismiss on a technicality would only allow her to file again at a later date, and is the only reason why Judge Carter granted her that latitude. He said, again quite rightly, that the case would be decided on it's merits and not because the plaintiff's attorney has no understanding of procedure. Well, the time will come for it to be decided on merits. The defense has moved to dismiss. It is up to the Judge to decide if their motion is to be granted or not.
If there's a hint of that here — especially now from any perceived tampering from Obama's Justice Dept — that alone might give the judge enough judicial justification (and just plain old curiosity) to authorize discovery to see what's REALLY going on here.
What Justice Department tampering do you perceive? Just curious.
Are you really that surprised, Butthead?
Cheering on taxpayer dollars going to protect Obama from those silly birthers.
My tax money gets spent whether I agree with it or not. Of course if the Birthers would give up then the costs would go down. But I don't expect that to happen, do you?
The DOJ is obligated to the defend the POTUS when he is sued. That’s part of their job. Obama doesn’t have to instruct them to do so.
The difference between Nixon and Obama, in the instance you reference, is that Nixon specifically instructed the DOJ to act outside of the law. The DOJ defending the sitting POTUS in a lawsuit is not an act outside the law.
What makes you think that Obama specifically instructed the DOJ to take action in this case to defend him? That’s their job. They did the same thing in another case recently with the exact same judge.
> The State’s Attorneys office defends a governor.
> Why wouldn’t a U.S. attorney defend a president?
Well, not all cases are created equal. For example, one would raise an eyebrow if the Illinois AG was asked by Blago to defend him.
Therein lies the political aspect — the appearance of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
Which brings up yet another element — is the DOJ being neutral and defending the office of POTUS, or the man occupying the position — of course, at the bequest of the POTUS?
Again, such a move to involve the DOJ has political consequences — which a POTUS with a highly ambitious agenda and falling approval numbers can ill afford. Which, of course, ups the ante for Mr Soetoro.
No, that video is from a 2006 speech. What I’m looking for is a video of him thnking Apollo Alliance for their help in drafting bills. It was aired on CNN the only time I saw it and it was a clip from the presser after the Cap&Tax was passed.
There were cases filed before he became president, where private counsel represents him. And there are cases, like this current one of Taitz's, that were filed after he became president. The U.S. Attorney handles those. And let me correct you in one thing; Obama isn't out dollar one on any of this. His campaign is footing the bill for the earlier suits.
Why did they wait 8 months to even COMMENT, and they have NOT sent attorneys on record for the defense from the DOJ to argue ANYTHING in ANY of these trials up until this motion.
What did you expect them to say? The first hearing on this case occurred back in July, when the Judge pointed out that Taitz had never properly served the President to begin with. Once that was done, the defense has 60 days to respond. There are two motions before the court from the defense, one of which is this motion to dismiss.
Why did Obama spend over $1 million dollars to PRIVATE attorneys to fight these court cases if the DOJ was supposed to defend him on our dime? Makes no sense at all — especially for a Democrat — to NOT take advantage of taxpayer-paid lawyers, especially if by LAW it is their DUTY to do so (as you maintain).
Again, there were suits filed before he became President, and suits filed afterward. The cost of the private attorneys have been paid by his campaign, and I believe represent less than one third of one percent of all the money they raised. For them these cases are being paid for out of petty cash.
Clearly, to me at least, something has changed now - in the last week or so - for the DOJ to step in at this point. What has changed? Orly just submitted a purportedly verified copy of a Kenyan BC for Obama, plus an affidavit regarding how it was obtained... And now all of a sudden the DOJ is involved and files a motion to dismiss? Seems awful coincidental, does it not?
No, because the Justice Department didn't suddenly step in. They've been representing the president in this particular suit all along.
LOL — That’s a good way to describe it...
Never fear. We here at FR would never think that you meant to say that word (starts with t, rhymes with roll) in connection with a poster like non-seq...hehe.
Are we allowed to say OTP-operative?
I've denied ever saying anything like that. If you can find a quote where I said that then I guess that would mean I am devious.
I’ll throw Obama a bone and concede that he was born in Hawaii ...
But, I want a writ quo warranto issued by a court so that he will have to prove that he is a natural born citizen ...
Quo warranto actions are common law actions, now frequently codified in statute, that challenge the winning office holder’s right to the elective office because of their purported failure to meet the necessary qualifications. Quo warranto actions differ from, and serve different purposes than election contests.
Election contests vindicate personal rights and are brought by or on behalf of unsuccessful candidates who claim they are the true winner or that the true winner is unascertainable.
Quo warranto, on the other hand, protects the public from an unqualified office holder and is brought by or on behalf of the public. Because it is meant to protect the public, statutory authority that grants a legislative body exclusive authority to determine election contests for its seats does not preclude citizens from filing quo warranto actions.
Quo warranto may be the exclusive statutory means of challenging the office holder’s entitlement to office.
Because a quo warranto action seeks to oust the usurper from office, it is only brought after the purported winner takes office.
Losing an election is insufficient by itself to sustain a quo warranto action. Either the losing candidate must plead and prove his own rightful title to the office, or he must be able to bring the quo warranto action in his capacity as an interested citizen and taxpayer.
Quo warranto actions are not barred by failure to bring a timely pre-election challenge to the candidate’s qualifications as long as legitimate grounds exist to believe that the office holder remains unqualified to hold office.
Successful quo warranto actions oust the office holder and leave the office either vacant or vested in the person in whose name the suit was brought.
As an extraordinary writ, quo warranto actions require the unavailability of an adequate alternative remedy. In some instances, quo warranto actions have been possible when state statutes did not support an election contest under the circumstances that tainted the election.
For example, although a jammed voting machine that stopped counting votes cast for one city council candidate after the first thirty-nine was not a sufficient irregularity to call a new election, it did support a quo warranto action brought by the state attorney general in which the certified winner was found to not be the true winner. A quo warranto action brought by the attorney general was used to challenge a tied mayoral election in which irregularities, including malfunctioning voting equipment, occurred. Quo warranto was also used to dislodge a judicial appointee when the judicial office remained on the ballot and another candidate won the election.
Quo warranto means “where’s the warrant” and, if I am not mistaken, the onus is on the current officeholder to prove he is eligible. Obama would have to prove that he is a natural born citizen - not the other way around (challengers having to prove he is not a natural born citizen.
Since the term “natural born citizen” has never been defined by the Supreme Court - I believe that they would have to hear the case in order to decide the issue.
Ordinary citizens are not precluded from filing writ quo warranto motions with the courts ...
If what you are saying is true then I apologize. For some reason I had thought this was the same suit as was brought before a court before the electoral vote was cast after the election. I was off the internet for 2 months this summer, July included, so I apologize for being “out of touch” with what’s going on in this particular case.
The Marine was The Commandant of The Marine Corps General Smedley Darlington Butler, twice the recipient of the Medal of Honor.
Anti war types always like to quote his book "War is a Racket" with acknowledging his warnings against fascism, coomunism, and socialism.
Outstanding post NS I support every word of it.
Can these actions be brought to the court as “class-action” type lawsuits? I’d bet a lot of citizens would sign on, IMHO.
Since it is the duty of the DOJ to defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to represent the U.S. in all legal matters, including matters before the SCOTUS, then why would there necessarily be the appearance of the abuse of power by Obama? The DOJ has a duty to act.
We have no idea if Obama specifically instructed the DOJ to take action in this case. Certainly, if Obama instructed them to take specific action, such as taking a particular position on the law, then there might be reason to investigate.
But there is nothing unusual about the DOJ defending the POTUS in a lawsuit as far as I can see.
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.