A federal judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit sees it differently: “There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the Presidential Oath and was sworn in, he became the President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—removal for any reason—is within the purview of Congress, not the Courts.—U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett et. al. v Obama, et. al., 10/29/09 I have heard that argument and I do not give it any weight. It is much like the argument in the opinion to the Republican's by the Harvard law professor and the hired lawyer that McCain was eligible.
The Carter opinion was written by a Perkins clerk on leave to work as a clerk for Carter for the purpose of massaging the result in the Carter case which Baer viewed as a real threat. It is just more self serving argument which isn't going to go anywhere in the real world if this ever gets to issue before the Supreme Court.
have heard that argument and I do not give it any weight. It is much like the argument in the opinion to the Republican’s by the Harvard law professor and the hired lawyer that McCain was eligible.
The Carter opinion was written by a Perkins clerk on leave to work as a clerk for Carter for the purpose of massaging the result in the Carter case which Baer viewed as a real threat. It is just more self serving argument which isn’t going to go anywhere in the real world if this ever gets to issue before the Supreme Court.
There have already been twelve attempts to get the Supreme Court of the United States to take a look at Obama’s eligibility; Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Hollister v Soetoro, Kerchner v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Rhodes v MacDonald, Schneller v Cortes, Taitz v Obama, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
Not even one Justice has ordered Obama’s attorneys or Justice Department attorneys to file a brief defending Obama’s eligibilty and all requests for Writs of Certiorari have been denied without comment. Barnett v Obama is at the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation.