Any legal challenges to his ability to perform the duties of the office must be adjudicated.... Can I assume that you have been following this issue for a while?
If you have you then know that almost all attempts to get this matter resolved legally (even before the elections) have been stymied by all sorts of legal maneuvering whose sole purpose was to prevent Obama's eligibility from being examined in a court of law.
With a question of this magnitude, our government has failed to protect the Constitution by allowing such tactics to be used to allow Obama to become president.
Can I assume that you have been following this issue for a while?
If you have you then know that almost all attempts to get this matter resolved legally (even before the elections) have been stymied by all sorts of legal maneuvering whose sole purpose was to prevent Obama’s eligibility from being examined in a court of law.
With a question of this magnitude, our government has failed to protect the Constitution by allowing such tactics to be used to allow Obama to become president.
The simple truth is that a Grand Jury investigation would have NO legal maneuvering and no question of legal standing.
The “Obama is ineligibile movement” adopted a losing legal strategy from the start and the movement has stuck with that losing strategy in lawsuit after lawsuit for years now.
ANY strong conservative/originalist prosecuting attorney in the nation could investigate Obama and subpoena Obama’s long form birth certificate. The fact that no has speaks volumes. The fact that no well known, nationally recognized conservative constitutional attorney has gone anywhere near an Obama eligibility lawsuit also speaks volumes.
By the way, when John McCain and the Republican National Committee were sued on the grounds that McCain’s birth outside the continental US made him ineligible, McCain’s attorneys and the Republican Party’s attorneys used the exact same legal tactic as Obama’s attorneys used, they filed for dismissal on grounds of lack of standing and they prevailed on those grounds. The New Hampshire Federal District Court lawsuit was “Hollander v McCain and the Republican National Committee.”
When the Republican Governor of Indiana was sued for allowing Obama’s name to be on the Indiana ballot and receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes when Obama’s father was not an American citizen, the Republican Governor of Indiana had the Republican Attorney General of Indiana use the legal tactic of trying to have the lawsuit dismissed on grounds that the plaintiffs had stated a claim that the Court had no remedy for—out of the Court’s jurisdiction. The original trial court judge and then a three judge Appeals Court agreed with Governor Mitch Daniels and his Attorney General and they dismissed the lawsuit. The case was “Ankeney et. al. v The Governor of Indiana.”
Can I assume that you have been following this issue for a while? Yes, I have.
If you have you then know that almost all attempts to get this matter resolved legally (even before the elections) have been stymied by all sorts of legal maneuvering whose sole purpose was to prevent Obama's eligibility from being examined in a court of law.
Standing is a hurdle that any plaintiff must jump in order to move forward. It's not a legal maneuver. It's a component of the Rules of Civil Procedure. And whether or not you or I like the rulings, the plaintiffs clearly did not meet the requirements of standing.
We've never been faced with the question of an ineligible POTUS. So there wasn't a model to follow. The proper venue to address this issue was a moving target. John McCain and the Republican Party always had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Aside from that, standing progressed as follows.
- Prior to the election, ordinary citizens had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility at the State level to prevent the Secretaries of State from certifying Obama's name on the ballots.
- After the election, only the members of the Electoral College had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Alternatively, the electors could have refused to vote for Obama when the Electoral College met.
- After the election and after the Electoral College met, only the members of Congress had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Alternatively, they could have submitted written objections to VP Cheney to be read at the time the Electoral College votes were counted by Congress.
- After Congress certified the Electoral College vote and before Obama was sworn into office, I don't know who had standing. Perhaps Congress.
- After Obama was sworn into office, only the Department of Justice (or someone granted ex relator status by the Court) had standing to challenge Obama's eligiblity through a writ of quo warranto in the U.S. District Court of D.C. Alternatively, Congress could impeach, convict, and remove Obama.
Now we know what the process is and who has standing and when. I hope we can focus our efforts toward the proper venue if Obama decides to run for re-election. We must pay attention to the State deadlines mandated for certifying Obama's name on the ballot. I also hope that a State legislature passes a law requiring their Secretary of State to personally verify Obama's eligibility or seek judicial guidance in the event that his eligibility is unclear.