Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
Yes, of course it’s a forgery - and not a very good one. That doesn’t change the fact that there is no requirement for production of the original document, and there isn’t going to be one, either.
***That’s the first time I’ve seen someone argue this level of factuality. There are seveal things to consider in that argument.
1) The constitution is the highest law of the land. Do you agree with that? The constitution requires the pres be eligible, in particular 2 requirements are aimed at the circumstances of his birth. So if there’s “no requirement for production of the original” that is just saying there’s no laws in place for it because this area of the constitution has never been challenged. That does NOT mean the constitution is inapplicable. It’s like the 3rd amendment, gathering dust because that issue hardly ever comes up in our republic, thank God. But if an army general came into your house and said, well, there’s no “requirement of production of the law” that says I can’t force you to house my soldiers and cook for them for the next 6 months, what would be your remedy? The remedy is that, sure there’s not much CASE LAW, but the highest law in the land is utterly clear on the requirement and that’s exactly what you’d rely upon.
2) The fact that the electronic copy of the CoLB is a forgery means that the only evidence the candidate has put forth so far has been forged evidence. Any other person applying for a federal job would be under increased scrutiny after that point, rightfully so.
3) The burden of meeting the qualification is on the president elect, not the people. Note that the 20th amendment says “if the president elect fails to qualify”, not “if the people fail to qualify him”.
That's exactly what it means.
or just updated in some way in that year,
Then it would show an amendment in 1982, but it would still show the original date of passage. For example, another law on the Hawaii books has the following at the end:
[L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]
The original passage is recorded as 1973, and every subsequent amendement is listed. You can check out the text of the law here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm
it clearly applies to births occurring well before 1982, and even before 1959, when the Territory of Hawaii became the state of Hawaii.
Sure. As of 1982, you could register a foriegn birth with the state of Hawaii, even if the birth came before 1982. Obama's birth, however, was registered in 1961, so this obviously does not apply to him.
Not in this case. The COLB clearly states at the bottom:
"This document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
Yes it is. It says right on the bottom:
"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
Indentions in the document are hard to pick up by scanners since they usually don't change the color or shading of a document very much. Better scanners will pick them up, others will not. Photos of the document, however, clearly pick it up.
Only fact check purports to have seen the paper document, upon which the raised seal has magically appeared, (after people noted it's absence). They purported to have photographed the document, but the photos show very poor, maybe deliberately poor, composition, lighting, and so forth.
That's pure bull. The photos look fine to me. I'll let any lurkers judge for themselves:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
>>Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust
White House News
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 1104(a)(1), 3301, and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, and in order to simplify and streamline the system of Federal Government personnel investigative and adjudicative processes to make them more efficient and effective, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. (a) When agencies determine the fitness of individuals to perform work as employees in the excepted service or as contractor employees, prior favorable fitness or suitability determinations should be granted reciprocal recognition, to the extent practicable.
(b) It is necessary to reinvestigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:
(a) “Agency” means an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include the Government Accountability Office.
(b) “Contractor employee” means an individual who performs work for or on behalf of any agency under a contract and who, in order to perform the work specified under the contract, will require access to space, information, information technology systems, staff, or other assets of the Federal Government. Such contracts, include, but are not limited to:
(i) personal services contracts;
(ii) contracts between any non-Federal entity and any agency; and
(iii) sub-contracts between any non-Federal entity and another non-Federal entity to perform work related to the primary contract with the agency.
(c) “Excepted service” has the meaning provided in section 2103 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include those positions in any element of the intelligence community as defined in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to the extent they are not otherwise subject to Office of Personnel Management appointing authorities.
(d) “Fitness” is the level of character and conduct determined necessary for an individual to perform work for or on behalf of a Federal agency as an employee in the excepted service (other than a position subject to suitability) or as a contractor employee.
(e) “Fitness determination” means a decision by an agency that an individual has or does not have the required level of character and conduct necessary to perform work for or on behalf of a Federal agency as an employee in the excepted service (other than a position subject to suitability) or as a contractor employee. A favorable fitness determination is not a decision to appoint or contract with an individual.
(f) “Position of Public Trust” has the meaning provided in 5 CFR Part 731.
(g) “Suitability” has the meaning and coverage provided in 5 CFR Part 731.
Sec. 3. Agency Authority to Set Fitness Criteria and Determine Equivalency. The authority to establish criteria for making fitness determinations remains within the discretion of the agency head. Agency heads also have the discretion to determine whether their criteria are equivalent to suitability standards established by the Office of Personnel Management. Agency heads shall take into account Office of Personnel Management guidance when exercising this discretion.
Sec. 4. Reciprocal Recognition of Fitness and Suitability Determinations. (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, agencies making fitness determinations shall grant reciprocal recognition to a prior favorable fitness or suitability determination when:
(i) the gaining agency uses criteria for making fitness determinations equivalent to suitability standards established by the Office of Personnel Management;
(ii) the prior favorable fitness or suitability determination was based on criteria equivalent to suitability standards established by the Office of Personnel Management; and
(iii) the individual has had no break in employment since the favorable determination was made.
(b) Exceptions to Reciprocal Recognition. A gaining agency is not required to grant reciprocal recognition to a prior favorable fitness or suitability determination when:
(i) the new position requires a higher level of investigation than previously conducted for that individual;
(ii) an agency obtains new information that calls into question the individual’s fitness based on character or conduct; or
(iii) the individual’s investigative record shows conduct that is incompatible with the core duties of the new position.
Sec. 5. Reinvestigation of Individuals in Positions of Public Trust. Individuals in positions of public trust shall be subject to reinvestigation under standards (including but not limited to the frequency of such reinvestigation) as determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to ensure their suitability for continued employment.
Sec. 6. Responsibilities. (a) An agency shall report to the Office of Personnel Management the nature and results of the background investigation and fitness determination (or later changes to that determination) made on an individual, to the extent consistent with law.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is delegated authority to implement this order, including the authority to issue regulations and guidance governing suitability, or guidance related to fitness, as the Director determines appropriate.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order shall not suspend, impede, or otherwise affect Executive Order 10450 of April 27, 1953, as amended, or Executive Order 13467 of June 30, 2008;
(d) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 8. Effective Date and Applicability. This order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to excepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 16, 2009.
There are about 100 federal district courts (at least 1 in every state and territory; larger states have between 2 and 4; the exact total, IIRC, is 93). But the only court rulings to have come down so far say that no private citizen has standing. So people can file all the suits they want, but they will all be dismissed unless one appellate court reverses one of the standing rulings.
This one and 35...Who have thunk dad would have a fan club?????
Any and all elucidations and commentary on that executive order welcome!
There is a principle of law called the "presumption of regularity of official action"-- if a government body or officer does something within their official duties, the courts will presume it to be legal and the burden of proof is on the person challenging it. (That's why, for example, if the IRS assesses taxes, the taxpayer the burden of proving them wrong.) Here, the House and Senate met in Joint Session to certify the electoral votes, and determined that Obama is the president-elect, and Vice President Cheney signed that certification. So the burden of proof is on the person challenging that certification.
Your third amendment point is a good one, let me think about it. As far as "any other federal job", no one else (except Biden) is hired by 67 million citizens.
That's not the same as being a copy of the original record. The Certification is the "short form", known more descriptively as the "abstract" version. It's called that because is an abstract of the latest information from the "original birth record".
Yes, it's evidence of the facts it contains, but it's not a copy of anything. It is a generated on request abstract. Generated either directly by looking at the "original birth record", aka "long form" aka "vault copy", or more likely these days, from a database which was populated by looking at the "original birth record." But of course what was posted was an image, not a document, and there is really no good way to be certain the image is an authentic representation of the original Certification document. It's more certain that document image appearing to be "photoshopped" actually was, than that one not appearing to be "photoshopped" was not.
But that was appears to have been edited. In any event it was altered, and even it were a paper document, it would be invalid.
Put another way, the Certification is a copy of some of the information on the "original birth record", but it is not a copy of the record itself. Such a copy would look almost identical to the original, which the Certification does not.
Lurking:”There is a principle of law called the “presumption of regularity of official action”— if a government body or officer does something within their official duties, the courts will presume it to be legal and the burden of proof is on the person challenging it.”
But isn’t the citizen Obama (not a govenment agent, at this point) responsible for submitting proof that he is elgible for the office of US President when he applies for the job (declares candidacy)? I do believe he has the burden of proof at this point. It seems to me that the legal process should be able to place burden on Obama retroactively since the governing bodies that oversee his candidacy appear not to have acted within the law.
Yet it is still unclear to me in the electoral process who specifically is the responsible party to authenticate the candidate’s qualifications. There seem to be many various theories flying about on FR concerning who is liable.
He may have had the burden of proof before January 8, but once Cheney signed the certification of electoral votes, Obama is presumed to have met that burden, becuase the people constitutionally charged with vetting him said that they were satisfied. The burden now shifts to whoever chooses to challenge Cheney's certification.
Whether it has been altered or forged is another story. The point is, demanding some other record because that kind of certificate isn't good enough, is false. It is good enough.
Funny then that they show up fine in other Certifications of Live Birth posted on the 'net. Such as this one:
Or this certified copy of a Certificate of Live Birth (it's a little hard to see on this one, but it's there in the upper right, starting near block 7c.
So you agree that the Obama campaign committed a fraud upon the American electorate? Given the questions that were floating around about his lack of natural born citizenship, how many folks that voted for him would not have done so had they not seen, or heard of this forged document and voted for Hillary instead. Particularly delegates to the Democrat Convention, as well as regular voters in the Democrat Primary. Enough that we'd be inaugurating President Clinton II next Tuesday? Or maybe President McCain, since Hillary *might* have been a weaker candidate than The One?
Turn that around. What do you think *should* happen should a person be found not eligible to the Office after having taken it.
I know what usually happens when it's found out that a job applicant lies on his application or provides false information as to ones educational background and experience. She gets fired, and often the company security guards will escort her off the property, and rather quickly.
How to you fire a person unlawfully occupying the office of President. Are they really President if they were never eligible in the first place? If they aren't then they cannot be impeached, since that's for removing a President, which they would never have actually been per the Constitution's requirements.
Suppose they were actually only 34 years old, or had only lived in the country for 12 or 13 years. The Natural born citizen requirement is not the only one in Article II.
Just as proof of identity, or even citizenship is not enough for eligibility to the office of President.
The GOP SHOULD have nominated a real conservative for president.
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.