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.
Because the suit was filed after Obama was inaugurated. U.S. Attorneys represent the United States in lawsuits like this.
Go find the “law” that it is based on!
There is none.
I seen it, the question is who then has that kind of power to silence the press of not only this nation but the world.....
I’ll take my dad’s word....He graduated at the top of his law class and clerked in the Federal Court...It is a procedural tools used by the court not a law.
Nope. You’re wrong. They only defend the office/government not the people......This is personal.
Well that's good because I just heard that the Obama Cash for Hackers program is running out of money.
Yeah, he was. Taitz's own website admits she filed it on Inauguration day, though she failed to serve the defendant until July.
No, they served the papers before the inauguration so they are suing Barak Obama.
Whenn Jon Klein tried to float the gross lie that the actual paper documents from which the electroni files in HI were built had been destroyed, I called HI Vital Records to check that. They were amused that someone would try to make such a claim since they take meticulous care in environmentally controlled vaults to preserve such documents as BC and deeds, and will send out actual photostat copies if required, as in by a court. There is no doubt that the media has sold their collective souls to place and keep a socialist of their twisted ilk in office.
Ooo! Ooo! Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer to that.
;p
The President is part of the government. Presidents gets sued all the time; I lost count of the number of idiots who sued Bush and Cheney over Iraq for everything under the sun. In every case their defense is handled by the U.S. Attorney for the region where the suit is filed.
Justice Gray???? Wasn't he the Justice appointed to his position by that other unqualified President who was also not a natural born citizen???
Could you? Puleeze?
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for ‘concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show ‘a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
If the answer is NO. I've made my point....His action does NOT qualify him to used the DOJ as a personal attorney.
Yeah, it was all a big conspiracy because Chet Arthur had a feeling that 16 years later some Chinese guy would file a suit on citizenship and there was a chance that Justice Gray might be selected to write the majority decision, and Arthur wanted to make sure the fix was in. </sarcasm>
I swear you people must not realize just how ridiculous you sound some times.
Those are all procedural cases....Find the law passed by legislature. It is prodecural not a law.
In addition to Barack Hussein Obama, Taitz lists as defendants the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President.
But until you can prove the answer is NO then the DOJ does act as his personal attorney.
That is the context in which you are parsing your arguments to seem as if this hinges on technical matters, when it does not
Obama is a cypher, he has no backgrond which can be accessed save for that which he has manufactured.
And he has spend over a million dollars in travel and legal fees to keep his birth records sealed. He has cauterized his school hostory all the way from grade school up to his activities in LAw School.Wo paid for his education? Why did he travel under an Indonesian passport when he went to Pakistan as a college student?
Did he apply for loans as a foreign student?
This is the context in which you make your arguments, and you act as if that context did not exist. Your perigrinations are beyond hilarious.
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.