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.
The real "Birthers" are the people who are not demanding Obama prove his eligibility. They don't demand it, because they believe he can't!
Yes, as far as I know.
I’m just a-wonderin’ how some of the things people here say about Judge Carter will change if he doesn’t produce the results some want.
You gotta read these 3 web pages concerning a writ quo warranto - it may be the only way to get him to pony up the documents or risk losing his office:
Part 1
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/
Part 2
Part 3
Interesting stuff ...
And just what work is that???
And BTW, appreciation does not pay the bills. He better be getting his paychecks on time and I trust it will be time and a half for his work this Labor Day.
Letsd try again. THE DOJ is an attorney for the defence of a government office.....Do you understand that?
This would end tomorrow if Obama released his bona fides.
That he has spent $2 million on private attorneys, much of it illegally, and is now relying on DOJ attorneys to hide his background says this guy has something to hide.
Just ask yourself, how, in the millions of kids that went to school in Hawaii, did Obama’s kindergarten records just happen to get lost?
That's just one of the hundreds of legitimate questions this guy needs to answer.
Ditto. I appreciate your logic, N-S.
N-S makes logical arguments on this subject. He’s incorrect, but his arguments are logical and should be considered. :)
He will say the same about my arguments - they’re logical but ultimately incorrect. We agree to disagree, but we do so without calling each other names. It just isn’t necessary.
Clearly, I understand that fact, since I’ve posted it multiple times on this thread. Asking me if I understand that is insulting.
If you want to have a discussion, be polite. Otherwise, I won’t converse with you.
I have repeatedly seen you browbeat other posters until the Mods had to step in and tell you to back off, that’s not debate or discussion, it’s borderline fascism and it reflect back on anyone that wants to see this man exposed for what he is.
So I got your own personal code word wrong, you treat anyone that doesn’t toe your line as if they don’t have the right to be heard.
In fact you are begining to sound just like one of Non Sequitur’s favorite targets oNlY WitHOut The wilD CaPiTOlizaTiOn
Free Mortie!
And for NS s/he has gone on for years trolling way before Obama was on the scene.
Just trying to figure out where you lose the logic of the explanation: Do you understand that the DOJ does NOT defend the person in the office for their personal behavior?
NO, Just trying to figure out where a freeper loses contact with why the DOJ should not be defending BO in this case.
THE DOJ is an attorney for the defence of a government office.....Do you understand that?
Are you suggesting that if a fraud were perpetrated before Obama had the office, Obama now has the benefit of civil servant lawyers?
Truly, we have entered the Twilight one.
The guy commits a crime and then has the government defend him?
As FU’d up as everything around this guy is, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he gets away with it.
***
Well, someone could really roil things up if they request that Holder institute a motion for a writ quo warranto ...
If he doesn’t do it, they can ask the same of the U.S. Attorney for DC ...
Its an either/or deal - only one has to consent ... Which would be funny - since the Justice Dept. would be prosecuting it’s own boss (Obama) ...
If neither consent, a third party can go ahead and file the motion on behalf of the United States ...
No need for the AG or the US Attorney, since they had their chance ...
Fair enough.
The DOJ represents the government in all legal matters. The DOJ must defend federal law. The DOJ must also defend the interests of the government.
Personal actions, to me, would reflect actions taken by someone that are outside of or irrelevant to one’s official duties. So yes, the DOJ would not be expected to defend those actions.
However, one’s negligence in performing one’s duties would not be a personal action because the action/inaction is directly relevant to one’s official duties. Negligence is the failure to act when one is obligated to do so.
“And BTW, appreciation does not pay the bills. He better be getting his paychecks on time and I trust it will be time and a half for his work this Labor Day.”
A fine example.
You do not agree what his ideas. And appear to believe that the only way he could present the conclusions he does is if he was paid to do so.
Not a different assessment of the facts. Not different opinions arrived at in good faith. Not simply being mistaken, the result of unclear thinking, ignorant or just plain old wrong.
Instead he must have been paid to says what he does.
How does that bring anything to the discussion?
Can you imagine in any way that his comments can be taken at face value as having been arrived at honestly or in good faith?
Indeed!
every citizen of the united states is injured by an unqualified man as president......theOne and only’s DOJ is full of it.
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.