Posted on 01/14/2010 10:08:15 AM PST by STARWISE
Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.
In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.
Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.
The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.
On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.
“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,” Taitz wrote. “A number of criminal activities were perpetrated upon this court.”
On Dec. 4, Carter denied her request for reconsideration, saying legal language that he had ruled once and for all - and that meant the case was finished in his court.
This doesn’t have anything directly to do with her court case, but it’s of interest to note that on her blog later in December, she suggested armed rallies and protests might be in order.
The day before Christmas, she asked Carter to send the matter to Washington, D.C. court. But neither Santa nor Carter granted her wish. Carter issued his ruling Tuesday.
The 14th amendment was not passed until the late 1860s. The Natural Born citizen clause was included in the original Constitution passed in 1787. The former can hardly govern the latter. Oh it could if it said "All persons born in the US are Natural Born Citizens" or something similar. It says only that they are citizens. The 14th thus did not change the definition of natural born citizen, which remains what it was in 1787.
Before any amendment to the Constitution is ratified, the law of the land operates in a different way but the amendments then alter the original document. For example, the Founding Fathers did not believe in direct popular election of Senators but the 17th Amendment changed that.
The 14th Amendment changed the rules on citizenship to two categories ONLY: born citizens and naturalized citizens for every American including those who might be elected President.
McRino was "talked to" which is why he made that very bizarre statement that we have nothing to fear from Hussein.
(It can still be done for 2012).
Which is why he and his handlers are going gangbusters on every bill now because it will be challenged in '12 and he will be proved a liar and a fraud. He'll come down with some illness or claim stress to his happy home and in '11 and through tears and a first time bent head as the adoring msm use up their flash bulbs will decline a second term. The only catch is why hasn't the alinsky adm found their replacement. Perhaps they have and this time all the t's will be crossed and all the i's dotted so no one can question anything.
The 14th amendment was not passed until the late 1860s. The Natural Born citizen clause was included in the original Constitution passed in 1787. The former can hardly govern the latter. Oh it could if it said “All persons born in the US are Natural Born Citizens” or something similar. It says only that they are citizens. The 14th thus did not change the definition of natural born citizen, which remains what it was in 1787.
Good catch! Thanks.
While interesting, I don't believe that a lower court ruling in one state has any standing as a precedent in federal court so the Minor Case stance on NBC will hold as precedent until SCOTUS takes NBC up again directly.
Leo Donofrio savaged the Ankeny ruling on his blog (before he took it down pending his current case) pointing out many weaknesses in the ruling.
Phil on The Right Side of Life posted some of Donofrio's comments on Ankeny here:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/16/eligibility-update-ankeny-v-daniels-and-citizenship-sen-frist-on-birthers-kerchner-ad/
The Indiana Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court. It handles appeals between the trial court and Indiana Supreme Court.
Get back to us when the case is on appeal from the Indian Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Although I suspect the case is now moot, since the governor did certify the results of the election, and such certification, by itself, probably can't be undone. That doesn't mean that a person elected or appointed to an office for which she/he is not eligible can't be removed.
My mother was born with dual citizenship because my grandmother was not a US citizen at the time of my mother's birth; however my mother didn't even know about her dual citizenship until she was in her 70s. How was my mother "governed" in any way shape or form by a foreign country?
The answer lies in your question. She was a dual citizen, that is, a citizen of another country.
Your first post, how special, you joined just to defend Oholyo’s MIA BC. you...... are a troll.... and not even a good one.
Good catch.
later
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.