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 since they’re suing the president, the U.S. Attorney handles the defense.
___________________________________________
Actually Barry Dunham-Soetoro should be sued as a private citizen...
he would have to prove he was eligible to be president...
They are not irrelevant.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we consider constitutional law as a practice, it is clear that both originalism and precedent play an important role. Neither one is going to vanquish the other, at least not any time soon. We can engage in academic debate about originalism versus stare decisis, as if they were rival modes of interpretation that could operate to the exclusion of the other. But the question of practical importance is one of degree and emphasis: in cases where these two sources of authority arguably point in different directions, which one should have a greater claim to our allegiance?
Originalism—interpreting the text in accordance with the understanding of the Framers—is arguably the more fundamental principle. Insofar as our legal system rests on legal positivism or the command theory of law—which it largely does, at least with respect to enacted law—then the Constitution must be regarded as the supreme command of the ultimate lawgiver, the People. When asking what command the People have given, it makes sense to ask what the People understood the provisions of the Constitution to mean at the time they were adopted. Thus, when questions of first impression arise, or disputes erupt about whether particular precedents should be overruled, nearly all Justices seem to regard evidence of original understanding as being relevant to resolving the issue. (1)
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-149267455/originalism-stare-decisis-and.html
Yes, but you didn’t refer to the sexual harassment charges made by Paula Jones. You referred to the perjury charges against him and his impeachment. The perjury charges were filed by Ken Starr who was Independent Counsel appointed by the DOJ.
By any definition on earth, any soldier wearing the uniform of any branch of the US Military has standing. Anyone who serves in the military under this president can be ordered into action and killed or maimed for life. Every single soldier has the RIGHT to know his orders are legal.
I have been saying all along that the troops should be the ones to file a class action suit. They would suffer irrepairable harm under a bogus CiC.
It’s a grim satisfaction to know that the very ones who defend him so strenuously are the self-same people he needs to liquidate once he has consolidated his power.
I give her credit for fighting him tooth and nail. Only a few other lawyers are like BErg, Apuzzo and a few others.
Spending 2 minutes extra to run spell check does not require superior intellect or fluency in 5 languages.
“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.”
Or right to LIFE? Right to petition the courts for redress of grievances? Right to own personal property?
Agreed Stone.We live in interestig times. Will we all have to renovate our himes into crenellated castles , with clear fields of fire?
I can stop work anytime, have zero income, garden and hunt, and ignnore every fed that shows up outside due process of law.If we all did it, the left would vanish as a beast starved to its death, as you say.
That idea makes me quite happy!
I still look forward to CIA leaks.They will come.
The MSM is writing its own death warrant, if they continnue to support him. He will turn on them if he does consolidate power.But we won't let him get quite that far, but it would be interesting for them to have a little taste of it, if only it could be arranged.
Please ask your friend why are they representing an elected official for something they did before they were elected?
Didnt sometry to go to sourt about this in the early stages ???
before he was elected or before he was chosen by the electral College or before he was sworn in ???
They do have a point in this...
however, Barry Dunham-Soetoro didnt just commit a crime and leave it at that he is still in the midst of the crime...
Just like an illegal laiebn continues to commit ther crime of being in this country illegallly...
Whether he is caught in the first month or 10 years down the road...
he still gets deported...or should be...
Barry Dunham-Soetoro is still ineligible to be POTUS...
The US Solicitor General is the representative for the US Government in cases that come before the US Supreme Court, nothing more nothing less.
They will either argue the case that's brought by and for or against the US, or they will file amici curiae briefs on behalf of the US government in cases in which there are special interest or concerns of the US government.
The Solicitor General is in no way characterized as the President's own lawyer.
‘scuse me, but yes I did refer to clinton being sued. I just didn’t say by whom. I figured that was pretty well known.
“...when he was sued? It wasn’t the DOJ.”
It was the original suit that brought about the impeachment and perjury charges.
Filing for the election and falsely filling out the form was done before he was president. He should hire his own attorney or just keep using the one's he's been paying.
He should also fire Holder for not representing him earlier, since, as you say, Holder was obligated to represent him.
How about writing a letter to OB asking him to open his records. Tell him it is the only way he can prove what idiots the people who disagree with you are.
Thanks - read some Berg appeals filings and it looks like DNC counsel and Obama for America counsel. I’d imagine this is pretty normal in terms of how his representation is set up.
Charlie Rangel is over $1,000,000 in legal defense using his leadership PAC and election funds, so the money isn’t out of the question if the lawsuits keep going on and on.
Robert O’Brien:
http://www.arentfox.com/people/index.cfm?fa=profile&id=285
Did you ever figure out the house bill 10 they were using in their argument?
What does Robert O’Brien have to do with this case?
Thank you for that great info in # 448
:)
As I recall we had just had a little tiff with the British when the constitution was written. Are we now to believe that the founders would have approved of someone to be president whose father was a British subject?
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.