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'm sorry -- did my post hit too close to home for you???
If Holder appoints a special prosecutor, the government (DOJ) becomes the plaintiff and Obama would be immediately required to obtain private attorneys.
And which one of those are you???
A joke you are ... and a fool at FR to be proud of being dishonest. Have nice evening.
Obama was not sworn in at the time the lawsuit was launched.
If anything the Department of Justice whose job it is to protect the People of the United States from things like election fraud, voter intimidation. illegal political contributions, and money laundering should be investigating Obama and his organisation to find out where 750 million dollars that it received came from, unless of course we are to believe a Mr. “Loving You” actually lives inside a Salvation Army store in Texas was allowed by law to donate more than the law allows.
Yes, thus the basis of the DOJ's legal argument. Legal standing requires that the injury/damages be unique to the individual plaintiff. Since everyone is equally injured, no one has standing. It SUCKS, but that's the way it is. Generally speaking, there is also no individual taxpayer standing.
Are you kidding me? Officers of the executive branch must swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It’s a requirement in order to hold the office, therefore it is a duty of the office. Failure to do so is not a “personal action” as you’ve defined it. It’s plain and simple “negligence of official duties.”
Not in the slightest.
Why do you ask?
“Standing” is not a legal issue but a tool originated by the court system to help it be more efficient....Standing itself should be adjudicated.
Ping me to interesting threads on this topic whenver you feel so inclined. I’m exremely busy and can only check on FR when I steal the time...hopefully have more time in a few weeks...
This is really getting exciting. I can’t wait until 0 resigns.
that is really messed up!
Plainly, I am not a birther.
Though I have fallen in to one or more of those traps of unclear thinking on various topics over the course of my life.
I expect to catch myself doing it time and again until I die.
It’s a very human failing.
As I said earlier: negligence, bias, ignorance.....
Now you understand what I've been leading to.....They should be paying their own bill, not being defended at tax payer expense.
Orly can also argue they received their position by choosing to ignore the constitution in exchange for being rewarded with a specific position in the government. (pay for play)
Instead it is intervening in a case that Obama could have dismissed for merely $12 of that $750 million. It is evident at this point that that $12 document does not exist.
... and a fool at FR to be proud of being dishonest. Have nice evening.
Hey Non, does this remind you of someone?
One thing you must understand about Trolls, Professional Trolls are egoless, they have to be, nothing you can say will injure their egos.
Why? because Professional Trolls exploit the egos of their victims and attack the hypocrisy of those they choose to attack.
"A joke you are"
Your ego hopes that such a snide remark will piece my heart and wound me to the core, you could stand inches away from my nose and let loose with a fiery blast of endless obscenities and never see me blink an eye, it's been done before by better men than you could ever hope to be.
However, the charges are regarding his behavior as a candidate. He signed a form provided by the party, that he met the requirements. That form was given to the secretaries of state. This was all clearly before the election.
The DOJ has no responsibility to represent a party based upon their actions prior to taking office and they are wasting tax payer money.
Can you give me the name and state of even one of these Obama “private” attorneys? They’ve been active all over from what I read on these threads but no one has named a name in any of them that I can tell - even though many agree that his legal fees are in excess of $1,000,000.
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.