President's lawyers say eligibility question over

WND ^ | 9/15/09 | Bob Unruh

[pissant]

A team of taxpayer-supported lawyers arguing on behalf of President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office say not even the U.S. Supreme Court has any input into the question at this point, and such cases should be barred from the courts.

"The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office," said a brief filed by government lawyers in a California lawsuit over Obama's eligibility under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the White House.

That's because, the brief states, "the examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress."

The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of a number of plaintiffs alleging that Obama is not constitutionally eligible for office. The case, being handled by attorney Orly Taitz, who now has been joined by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has a tentative trial date of Jan. 26, 2010.

Before then, however, U.S. District Judge David Carter is scheduled to hear the government's demand that the case be thrown out.

The arguments submitted by acting U.S. Attorney George S. Cardona and assistant U.S. Attorneys Leon Weidman, Roger E. West and David A. DeJute, say the Constitution further specifies if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives has the authority to select the president, "and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates' qualifications."

[rocco55]

Quick question. Can the defendants object to or appeal the judges decision should he deny the MTD and by doing so, delay the commencement of discovery ? The defense has everything to gain from creating unnecessary (yet legally based) delays. Judge or other parties could get sick, be involved in a scandal, discover a conflict, etc...actually the possibilities are endless....just curious as to your take on the defendants right to an appeal. Thx !

[Flying right]

It makes me sick how much money he (Obama) is wasting in our court system by not releasing his birth certificate.
From a guy who wants to cut waste and excess spending, here’s something he could personally do to help.

[so_real]

I'll need a citation for that. My understanding is that the Commander in Chief is the 'highest' ranking officer in the armed forces. (There is a protocol for all those salutes he receives.) I doubt if the President would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice because, quite frankly, he outranks the Courts-Martial. In fact (see article 36) the President may even be allowed to prescribe uniform rules to military legal processions. The President is only directly beholden to the People, the Legislature, and the Supreme Court. As a civilian impersonating a military officer, the UCMJ also would not apply, only the U.S. CODE.

[justlurking]

The only remedy is impeachment IMO which would never happen with a dem congress. Doesn’t matter. The American people deserve the facts - whatever they are. I guarantee that if Obama were shown to be ineligible a large segment of the public would cause the dems major problems. Obama would likely survive but the dems would take a major hit.

I wrote a posting last week about the end game if it's shown that Obama is ineligible to be POTUS.

I also don't believe the courts will actually remove Obama from office. But, if the facts don't support him, the backlash will be huge.

The Democrats would never allow this Congress to even consider impeachment. And would give the Republicans a huge opening: by pledging to remove Obama from office, there would be a Congressional landslide in 2010.

Yes, there's always going to be the 20% on the left that believe the end justifies the means. But, I think that at least half of the Democrats would be absolutely disgusted if Obama turns out to be ineligible, because they would realize the subterfuge that was necessary to elect him.

[justlurking]

Sounds like "panic mode" has ensued a bit. The statement is a side-long admission that they cannot argue the case on its merits, or lack thereof. Instead they are fighting the proceedings exclusively on a point of order.

There's an old lawyer's aphorism:

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

I think we are at the third stage.

[Lmo56]

My understanding is that the Commander in Chief is the ‘highest’ ranking officer in the armed forces.

***

Yeah - but there is such a thing as fraudulent enlistment in the armed forces ...

Servicemen found to have enlisted when they were underage can be discharged under the fraudulent enlistment clause - they did not qualify in the first place ...

Maybe the same for Obama ???

[so_real]

Not quite the same for Obama. It's similar, as you say, because neither qualified in the first place. However, the fraudulent enlistee is not impersonating an officer as a civilian -- and he receives his compensation directly from the military. He would fall under the UCMJ Article 83 "Fraudelent enlistment, appointment, or separation". Mr. Obama, if found guilty, is a civilian impersonating an officer and does not receive compensation directly from the military. As such, US. Code Title 18,912 "Officer or employee of the United States" is more applicable. Just my opinion.

[plain talk]

You didn’t state any enforcement mechanisms therefore you have stated nothing really. In a practical sense impeachment is only legal remedy.

[dcwusmc]

The Commander in Chief is a CIVILIAN, not a military officer. That is the way it was set up from the get-go. We have CIVILIAN control over our armed forces. Unlike where the Prince of Wales is also Colonel-in-Chief of a regiment over there and wears a uniform, here there is no such thing.

[Bellflower]

interesting and desperate

[so_real]

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

I like that. I hope the next step in the progression after pounding the table is to go pound sand!

[so_real]

Agreed. The Commander in Chief is a civilian without question. However, I believe in the eyes of the Supreme Law, he is titled a "civilian officer", along with the Secretary of War et al, vis-a-vis United States v. Burns (1870). Perhaps I'm overreaching, but I do think the U.S. CODE pertaining to civilian impersonation of an officer applies as the CiC is a civilian officer and beyond that the highest ranking officer in the entire military body.

[dcwusmc]

Sorry, I think you ARE overreaching here. The President (or in this case, the Pres__ent) has authority over the military ONLY AS the civilian that he is. He is not a military officer in any conceivable way, shape or form. He is merely the apex of the pyramid, but it is only one hat that he wears.

In the sense you’re intimating, no, the US Codes do NOT apply to the POTUS or even the pretender-in-chief.