High court justice: Obama birth certificate fishySays evidence raises 'serious questions about authenticity' Published: 03/30/2012 at 10:06 PM
An Alabama State Supreme Court justice earlier this week agreed that findings suggesting Barack Obama presented a forged birth certificate to the nation “would raise serious questions about the [document's] authenticity” if presented as evidence in court.
Though the Alabama court denied a a petition filed by Hugh McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot in November, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
Parker writes, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
The “certain documentation” Parker refers to is the findings of an investigation conducted by Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/high-court-justice-obama-birth-certificate-fishy/
Essentially, a state Supreme Court Justice wrote that the CCP findings need to find their way into a "proper" lawsuit/venue.
This is the absolute crux of the matter. By steering this into the courts, the matter is steered to oblivion. Those officials charged with validating the eligibility of candidates for office DO NOT NEED the courts to allow them to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, when there is legitimate cause for concern.
They absolutely have it backwards.
FIRST, the election officials must do their job when there is legitimate cause for concern. Their job is to simply remove the candidate from the ballot. BTW, they remove candidates they consider unqualified from ballots all the time.
ONLY THEN, does it go to court; i.e., when those affected by their decisions have the absolute right to seek to overturn them.
IOW, Obama must be the Plaintiff NOT The Defendant.
Our officials, the overwhelming majority of whom are attorneys, are using the courts to avoid their constitutional responsibility in the matter of eligibility. In this they unfortunately have an excellent role model: The Supreme Court, which has seized upon one feeble excuse after another to throw out the appeals on the matter that have reached them.
Apparently they fear "Urban Violence," more than the threat of an eventual civil war.
This is not legal "Rocket Surgery." Think of a simple hometown Zoning Case.
The Zoning Officer inspects your new shed declares it contrary to code, whether built with a permit or not, and orders it torn down, which completely within his authority.
One then has the choice of:
(a) tearing it down or
(b) demanding a hearing or suing in court. Happens every day.
State Election Officials have similar powers. In fact, they exercise them in every state election and are sued by disqualified candidates, who either prevail or not! (E.G., Rahm Emanuel in Chicago fought disqualification on "residential" grounds ... and obviously won.)