Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter

Posted: 11/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Obmamaaaaa File, WND

Case questioning eligibility says facts don’t support Obama story

 


Posted: November 26, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks at the Chrysler Indiana Transmission Plant II in Kokomo, Indiana on November 23, 2010. Obama along with Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kokomo as part of their White House to Main Street tour of areas helped by the Recovery Act and auto industry bailout.   UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.

The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.

He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution’s demand that presidents be a “natural born citizen,” a qualification not imposed on other many other federal officers.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama’s presidency

The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.

“If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law],” states the pleading.

“Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure,” it continued.

“Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question,” it continued.

The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.


Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.

The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama’s claim to eligibility and his campaign’s citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama’s eligibility.

It suggests there are “sufficient allegations” that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama’s birth, in 1961.

“At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled,” the arguments said.

It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a “natural born citizen” is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a “biased” decision on “a completely extrajudicial factor” [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .

“A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister’s case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was ‘probably’ the ‘real plaintiff’ in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were ‘agents provocateur’ whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama’s constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe,” the petition says.

The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:

  • “Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?”
  • “By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a ‘natural born citizen’ as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?”
  • “In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that ‘the issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency’ combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?”
  • “Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?”
  • “Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?”

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been “twittered,” the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn’t even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister’s concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be subject to Obama’s orders.

“If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders,” the pleading said.

This case doesn’t have the “standing” dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson “found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing.”

Courts in other case have ruled that the plaintiffs suffered no injury themselves that was not general to the population, so they weren’t allowed to sue. However, because of Robertson’s handling of the case, standing here has been established, the pleading states, allowing the appeal actually to argue the merits of the case, and note how Supreme Court precedents have been contradicted in the handling of the challenge to Obama.

Officials told WND that this case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish that its precedents are binding.

The district judge also remarked “sarcastically” that there may be as many as a “couple of dozen” people concerned about the dispute. In fact, polls done by CNN and others indicate almost 6 in 10 in American don’t believe Obama’s birth narrative, which would give those doubting the president a total in the range of 180 million or more.

“In fact, reliable polls have shown the number of such people to be in the tens of millions and growing,” the pleading explains.

“The combination of bias and ridicule of a person like the plaintiff wanting his concerns resolved by a court as being, essentially, an ‘unthinkable’ notion, is an expressed denial of a citizen’s right to access to the courts,” the case pleading continues.

The document also explains that both Robertson and Obama have “held management positions on boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and thus are acquainted with each other. There is every appearance of bias here,” it said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

WND reported just days ago on another case, Kerchner v. Obama, that was before the Supreme Court with a request for review, on the same subject.

The case focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a “natural born citizen” was understand at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Great article. There’s a lot of good information here, though I did want to let you know something – I am running Fedora with the current beta of Firefox, and the design of your blog is kind of quirky for me. I can understand the articles, but the navigation doesn’t function so great.

  2. Can I put up your post to my wordpress weblog? I will add a one-way link to your forum. That’s one actually great post.

  3. Tawna Hatch says:

    There is clearly a bundle to know about this. I feel you made certain nice points in features also.

  4. I’m happy I found this blog, I couldnt uncover any info on this subject matter prior to. I also run a site and if you want to ever serious in a little bit of guest writing for me if possible really feel free to let me know, i’m always look for people to verify out my site. Please stop by and leave a comment sometime!

  5. Perhaps you have to change your modus operandi.

  6. I believed it was heading to become some boring previous publish, but it seriously compensated for my time. I’ll submit a link to this web page on my blog. I am certain my guests will find that incredibly helpful.

  7. I have been examinating out many of your stories and i can claim pretty nice stuff. I will surely bookmark your site.

  8. Great job here. I definitely enjoyed what you had to say. Keep going because you certainly bring a new voice to this subject. Not many people would say what youve said and still make it interesting. Properly, at least Im interested. Cant wait to see extra of this from you.

  9. How is it that just anyone can publish a weblog and get as popular as this? Its not like youve said anything extremely impressive –more like youve painted a pretty picture through an issue that you know nothing about! I dont want to sound mean, here. But do you really think that you can get away with adding some pretty pictures and not genuinely say something?

  10. Dude, please tell me that youre heading to write far more. I notice you havent written another blog for a while (Im just catching up myself). Your blog is just too important to become missed. Youve obtained so a lot to say, this kind of knowledge about this topic it would be a shame to see this blog disappear. The internet needs you, man!

  11. I’m happy I found this weblog, I couldnt learn any information on this subject matter prior to. I also run a site and if you want to ever serious in a little bit of guest writing for me if possible feel free to let me know, i’m always look for people to verify out my site. Please stop by and leave a comment sometime!

  12. china seo says:

    Thank you for that smart critique. Me & my neighbour were preparing to do some research about that. We obtained a superior book on that matter from our local library and most books exactly where not as influensive as your information and facts. I am incredibly glad to see these info which I was searching for a lengthy time.

  13. Excellent brief and this article helped me alot. Say thank you I looking for your information….

  14. I discovered your blog site on google and check a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the very good operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading more from you later on!…

  15. Typically I do not publish on blogs, but I would like to say that this put up definitely compelled me to do so! definitely wonderful put up

  16. Wonderful post. I learn new stuff on different blogs everyday. It is recommended stimulating to read through content from other writers and be shown a little something through. I’d think to apply certain of the content on my blog if you’re don’t mind. Natually I’ll present you with a link on web site. Appreciate your sharing sharing.

  17. mutuelle says:

    This is really a extremely beneficial read for me, Have to admit you might be 1 in the most effective bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article.

  18. Lon Moore says:

    You may have not intended to do so, but I think you have managed to express the state of mind that a lot of people are in. The sense of wanting to help, but not knowing how or where, is something a lot of us are going through.

  19. Let me begin by saying nice post. Im undecided if it has been talked about, but when using Chrome I can never get your complete website to load without refreshing many times. May just be my computer. Thanks.

  20. What I wouldnt give to have a debate with you about this. You just say so many things that come from nowhere that Im pretty sure Id have a fair shot. Your weblog is excellent visually, I mean people wont be bored. But others who can see past the videos and the layout wont be so impressed with your generic understanding of this subject.

  21. lcd hdtv says:

    Thank you for another excellent post. Exactly where else could anybody get that type of info in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am around the appear for these information.

  22. secured loan says:

    Resources such as the one you mentioned right here will be incredibly helpful to myself! I’ll publish a hyperlink to this page on my private weblog. I am sure my site site visitors will discover that very beneficial.

  23. I’d wish to thank you for that efforts you might have created in writing this article. I’m hoping the same greatest operate from you within the long term too. In reality your inventive writing abilities has inspired me to begin my own BlogEngine weblog now.

  24. inordinate register you secure

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s