Good night folks!
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.
Google the term and then look in the mirror.
Sorry to have bothered you will all of this following the Constitution nonsense.
It'd be nice if y'all would start.
Fraud is an impeachable offense. Now go prove it.
A usurper can’t be impeached...never legal in the first place therefore US Marshals would arrest him.
I didn’t realise that in your eyes the eligibility of the president was a nuisance....
Your argument would prevent a case from moving forward on discrete technical grounds as if the issue were ocurring in a vacuum. Cases of this nature are never posited nor are they decided in a political vacuum.Can you not see what is happeninig around you?
Your thinking is essentially like the technocratic apparatchiks of 1928 Germany, who thought that waving a white fag in the face of the national socialist bull would calm it down, when in fact it needs to be wrestled to the ground, and slaughtered.
And in a few years the SS were knocking on aparatchiks doors and leading them away, because they were a threat to the ever changing party line, and anobstacle to the somnelence required by the Nazi's of the middle class, the lock step that Obama would have us walk. You advocate on behalf of your very own enemy and know it not.
Read Jonah Goldberg's well annotated and historically researched defining work: "Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of America's Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning."
And by all means tell us what you meant when you pointed out that Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur. I love a good tin-foil beanie conspiracy.
I want to tell you something. As a former ethics attorney, I am personally going to refer those gov’t lawyers to their state bar for disciplinary action. Either they are incompetent becaise they have failed to use the unlimited resources of the gov’t to investigate the merits of their case or they are conspiraring with POTUS to obstruct justice by representing someone who they know or should know is outside the scope of his employment. They are not authorized to expend taxpayer’s dollars to represent someone who is outside the scope of his/her employment, i.e., unqualified POTUS. I don’t care what the technical objections may be, if he is not qualified to be POTUS, he is acting outside the scope of his employment. Standing is a technical objection that does not address the scope of employment issue, which is merits based. Before a gov’t attorney can expend effort to represent another government employee, he must conclude that the represented party acted/is acting in the scope of his employment. Why hasn’t the government investigated Obama, and why are they continuing to obstruct justice by throwing up these phoney arguments. Enough already. I am sick and tired of this charade.
Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.
Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.
Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech.
Yes they are. None of them relate to his constitutional qualification for the presidency.
Your argument would prevent a case from moving forward on discrete technical grounds as if the issue were ocurring in a vacuum.
I'm saying that the case should be decided according to the law, no more and no less. And if under the law the case has no merit or the plaintiff has no standing to sue then the matter must be dismissed. And if following the law qualifies as 'discrete technical grounds' in your world then it problem lies in your side and not mine.
Well the activities that Obama is being sued for took place before he was president too, therefore he should be using his own attorneys as well, right???
I wonder just how many people around here have ever read the Constitution and its definition of treason. I suspect very few.
It's like know who committed a murder and having the evidence to prove it.....BO’s CSI.
So where's your evidence to prove it?
The Constitution has more meaning to me than on the other side. Obama has provided what he claims is proof of his natural born citizenship. Neither the Constitution or the law requires him, or any other presidential candidate, to do more.
He's being sued because it is claimed he is holding an office he is not eligible for. That happened after he assumed it, not before.
Nice try though.
Did I post to you, oh no. Go piss up a rope.
Initial lawsuit
Jones began to be represented by Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata, two Washington, D.C.-area lawyers. Later she befriended Susan Carpenter-McMillan, a California woman and a very conservative commentator, who became her press spokesperson. Carpenter-McMillan wasted no time in using the press to attack Clinton to a much greater degree, calling him "un-American," a "liar," and a "philanderer" on Meet the Press, Crossfire, Equal Time, Larry King Live, Today, The Geraldo Rivera Show, Burden of Proof, Hannity & Colmes, Talkback Live, and other shows. "I do not respect a man who cheats on his wife, and exposes his penis to a stranger," she said.
Clinton and his defense team challenged Jones's right to bring a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for an incident that occurred prior to the defendant's becoming president. The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with a private civil lawsuit. The case wound its way through the courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court on January 13, 1997. On May 27, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Clinton, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Clinton dismissed Jones' story and agreed to move on with the lawsuit.
As for the rest of the defendants, they either knew, or should have known, as leaders of their party, that obama was not a legitimate candidate. Their failure to do due diligence is what this is about.
The DOJ is under no obligation to defend any of them since the actions or nonactions in question were before they held any office in the administration.
If someone else has covered this, excuse the replay. I just got back here and haven't read through the entire thread yet
.
You be sure to let us all know how it turns out.
I looked up “birther” in the dictionary and there is no such word.
I guess it is just made up like you leftists made up that the Kenyan Klown is qualified to be President.
Go figure Obama is surrounded by liars and clowns and his supporters are indeed liars and clowns as well.
Good night folks!
How about the Constitutional right to be governed by a President who meets the qualifications of the Constitution???
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.