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.
Then in order to establish fraud then wouldn't you need to see the actual document and compare it with documents known to be authentic?
Then they should have filed the suit -- pre-election. Since they waited until after Obama was inaugurated then the Justice Department handles the defense.
Are you being paid for your work in support of this POS, or are you just another America-hating, communist?
Nope. Why are you here?
Nope. A picture of your spouse bears some resemblance to a picture of your sister-in-law.
Do you need to see her in person to recognize which is a picture of which?
I wonder what the treatment of Judge Carter is going to be like here on September 9th if he ashcans this.
How long do you think it will take for the comments about him to go from ‘gusty- Marine Judge’ to ‘corrupt, spineless traitor’?
Followed by the allegations that he was probably pressured by the administration or or otherwise threatened with harm...
Well I can look back and find half a dozen or so threads I posted on this weekend alone that have nothing to do with Obama at all. For you we have to go back to last month when you were bitching about no Social Security raise. Who's the obsessive one?
Which one of those questions was your "Nope" for???
Isn’t this just one of many eligibility cases out there and waiting to be heard?
Post 295: Can you check out the information on this post?....It’s from a longer thread and the links don’t seem to work.
No disrespect, but you’re kidding, right?
Your post. You check the links.
My favorite play of all time. I still read it at least once a year. I have a 1962 printing that I actually got signed by Bolt in 77 or 78 - which was right before he had his paralyzing stroke. He also signed "The Thwarting of Baron Bolligrew" for me as well - which I used to read to every one of my children when they were young. They are two of my most prized possessions. Love Bolt and I love "A Man for All Season".
Incidentally, you're in good company. I've heard Antonin Scalia at a DC dinner speech describe AMFAS as easily his favorite piece of literature.
OK: Job description says the job of office is “X”. If the person questions that action than the DOJ gets involved.
If person A either does not do “X” because of incompetance, ignorance, bias etc. than they are personally liable and must provide their own counsel.....
If they get the DOJ involved and are found to be at fault than they are abusing the authority of their office.
GET IT?
I copied it from another thread and have asked if any one has any knowledge or knows how to check it out...The are links posted that are only available if you subscribe to various legal websites.....I AM aware that at least one of the links doesn’t work but have not seen Author 2 (the original poster) on the threads today to get a working link or more information.
Thought you might have information on the subject.....Sorry if my opinon of your abilities is higher than your insult of me implies.
Pay closer attention, troll. I call them obamanoids, not obots. Sheesh, you can’t even be accurate in your spin cycle. At least you were partially honest, when you claimed to ‘have been’ a troll. Do you and Non-Sequitur live close to each other? Do you trolls have little sessions where you laugh and share examples of your work at making stink at FR? ... You’re a joke. Dishonesty isn’t something to be proud of, fool.
Yours is a straw man argument for it rest on the presumption that everything written in the Constitution has to be defined within the Constitution. We have a right to bear arms in the second amendment but you'll not see "arms" defined anywhere within the text of the document.
You lied purposely in your posting and I was calling it out. Deal with it.
For the record, the father of your fourteenth amendment, John Bingham had this to say about the natural born citizen issue:
"every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
I invite everyone to review Non-Sequitur’s posts.
Use the search. Click “Users.”
There they are. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds — maybe thousands of posts defending the Obamamessiah.
This paid hack is as much a conservative as Obama is a Republican.
This is his — or her — job.
No, I don’t get your point.
Clinton’s sexual harrassment of Jones took place when he was the Governor of Arkansas not when he was a sitting POTUS. Clearly he was not entitled to DOJ attorneys in that case. Then, the DOJ charged him. Clearly, the government cannot act as prosecution and defense. So, Clinton was entitled to DOJ attorneys. He needed private attorneys.
Whatever accusations Taitz makes against Obama, Clinton, Gates, and Biden are regarding their action or inaction as officers of the executive branch. They’re entitled to DOJ attorneys, for now. Michelle L.R. Obama is listed as a defendant also. She would not be entitled to a DOJ attorney, but she receives the benefit of one since the motion to dismiss affects the whole the case.
There also is no evidence that the DOJ acted at the request of the POTUS or took a specific action at his request. If that turns out to be the case, then the matter should be investigated.
“You boneheads just don’t get it, do you? You think it’s all about supporting Obama?”
It’s been fascinating to watch these threads over the past few months, though perhaps not always in a good way.
N-S, I for one appreciate the work you have done here.
A fair number of folks who post to these threads and call themselves ‘birthers’ are approaching this issue in a different manner than you are, and as a result of this there is only so much anyone can do for them. They are simply not going to get it.
For some it is purely emotional. Any facts that contradict their worldview cannot even be considered.
For others an opposition to their worldview threatens their view of themselves. If something they believe is presented as being wrong or bad, then they behave as if they themselves are accused of being wrong or bad.
For others it’s just a child-like view of the world. They are good. They hate things that are bad. They hate Barack Obama. Anyone who does not share this view must also be bad.
There are other examples, but that’s a fair start.
The last one has got to be my personal favorite to watch. I think it’s the one that most often results in the responses of: “You disagree with me, therefore you must be a closeted homosexual who enjoys performing fellatio on the person I hate...”
Anyhow...
As I see it, you aren’t posting for their benefit. You are effectively posting for all those who read these threads and don’t comment, but are encountering some idea or issue on the BC flap for the first time.
I think it was Yul Brenner who claimed that in every performance, he was performing for the person who hadn’t sen the show before.
Lots of folks encounter this issue, or some aspect of it for the first time on FR. Your efforts have done yeoman’s work for both presenting a rational viewpoint and for keeping this place from turning into an echo chamber.
And for that you have my appreciation and respect.
Ugh. Harassment.
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.