Nope. Since I used to call myself a birther, it most definitely is not name calling.
“Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as
citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.”
My conclusion: Judge Land is a “birther”!
Judge Land’s remedy if Orly’s charges are true:
“In addition to the obvious opportunity
that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate’s
qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism
for removing a President who “slips through the cracks,” which is how
counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the President
can be removed through impeachment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4; see
also id. art. I, §§ 2 & 3. Thus, if the President were elected to the
office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his
constitutional disqualification, then a mechanism exists for removing
him from office.”
My conclusion: Land, by omission doesn’t recognize quo warranto as a remedy for removing an ineligible POTUS. Leo Donofrio will not be pleased. Land articulates Orly Taitz’ exact charges against Obama and rather than disparaging them, instructs Taitz on the most straightforward constitutional remedy.
But then, shockingly, Judge Land identifies the one exception when the judiciary “will participate in…the removal of the President”:
“But it is clear that the Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate in the selection or removal of the President, unless an individual can
clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are somehow violated by the process.”
Holy Fleep!
Hidden in Judge Land’s ruling in which he must uphold the dignity of the federal bench when under assault from well-intentioned but deluded and reckless counsel regardless of his personal views on the case, Judge Land, in my reading, has declared his support for participation of the judiciary in the removal of the President if (and only if) “an individual can clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are somehow violated by the process.”
How about Keyes individual right to a fair election which Judge Carter has already verbally affirmed as being a legitimate right of the candidate plaintiffs of Taitz and Creep?
Note Land’s language “violated by the process”! Obama wouldn’t even need to be aware that he was ineligible to be removed by the judiciary if it was proved that a flawed process allowed an ineligible candidate to become president, it seems Land is saying.
Note that Judge Land’s statement covers not only the pre-inauguration “selection” process, but “removal of the President”, as in the inaugurated President! Judge Land says the judiciary can remove the sitting President under this exception!
I hereby pronounce Judge Land to be a Patriot and a credit to the federal bench!