.
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.
Thanks for your honest assessment.
Defendant's always want to get suits dismissed--soon as possible. No different here.
The most threatening legal argument is the one NS advances that the subject matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the court because it is within the purview of the political process which has already resolved the issue. I tend to doubt that this judge is likely to let this defendant off the hook on those grounds.
It has always seemed to me that the Constitutional provision turning eligibility to hold the office is conclusive that if Congress has made a mistake in determining that an individual is eligible, that still doesn't make him eligible--if he isn't eligible, the office is simply vacant.
And if that is correct, properly pleaded, It is pretty difficult to see how the military plaintiff's don't have standing.
I have urged Mr. Farrah's manager to get an article together explaining why the military has such a direct interest in having the office of Commander in Chief filled. Private Snuffy relies on valid orders from a real CIC for tort immunity when he shoots someone. Numerous international treaties regarding combat turn on the validity of the orders given to the grunts on the ground.
Someone with press credentials could go interview the Judge Advocate General and ask him what the exposure of the military really is. It would make a much better story than a continuing rehash of existing topics.
There was a thread here with info from the dem campaign fund expenditures. Somewhere in what has become a haystack.
Obama has been represented in various actions at various levels by the firms of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago; by Williams and Conley in DC; and by Perkins Coie in Seattle. His lead counsel on these issues at present is a partner in the Perkins firm.
SO, why is he being represented by the DOJ in this case?
.
And yet you had to ask. I guess you're just not as bright as your buddies, huh?
Both.
If the tables were reversed and it was a republican hiding documents, records or even tapes, the Department of Justice would demand their release.
Instead we get a silence across the nation of voices that would normally be demanding full disclosure.
The question then becomes what do they know and why is there this silence conspiracy designed to protect Obama...
I confess that I enjoyed the movie more than the play. I've seen it done twice, and I found The Common Man to be distracting and liked it better in the movie when his function was spread among several characters. However it would have been wonderful seeing Paul Scofield perform Thomas More live.
Then why should we accept your definition as correct?
You lied purposely in your posting and I was calling it out. Deal with it.
Bullshit.
For the record, the father of your fourteenth amendment, John Bingham had this to say about the natural born citizen issue...
My 14th Amendment? What, it isn't yours as well?
Here's what Justice Gray had to say about 'our' 14th Amendment:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
” SO, why is he being represented by the DOJ in this case? ‘
I have a buddy at the DOJ and I sent him this article and asked for his input.
He told me that the DOJ is obligated to defend federal employees .
I wish I had asked, but, I assume he meant-if requested.
Because, after saying that , he had no idea why Holder and the DOJ had gotten involved in this case ,
when they hadn’t been involved in previous cases.
His reading of the info was that the DOJ response was that this was a political case that
would require a political solution.
He disagreed and believes this is absolutely a Constitutional issue.
He then asked the million dollar question-
Why doesn’t he just produce his long form and be done with all this ?
Take away the capital letters and yeah, it reminds me of someone. Can you imagine what he'd be like on these kinds of threads as well?
Nah, bugging the crap out of lightweights like you is so much fun I do it for free.
I don’t even know what that statement means. Standing is the legal basis by which the court determines whether or not a plaintiff can bring the action.
No sister-in-law so you'll have to come up with another lame analogy.
That's a new one!
They seem to think everything else can be done in court.
Excellent question! Are you familiar with the assertion from a Canadian news source that an intimidation effort was launched prior to the Nov’08 election which threatened anyone in media raising the issue of eligibility for Obarry? If you haven’t seen it, I think we could rummage up a link.
If standing should be adjudicated then can I sue an airline for damages for the mental anguish caused to me by the knowledge that their airplane might crash with me on it? If not, why not?
No, I still don’t understand the basis of your argument. Failure to perform the duties of one’s office is not a “personal action” as you’ve defined it. It’s negligence of duty and is directly related to one’s official position as an officer of the government. Therefore, one is entitled to DOJ attorneys.
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.