Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a
court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution's
eligibility requirements for
were finished, something new has
appeared on the horizon.
Or in this case, the court docket.
has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don't ask
anything about Obama's
or for any determination from the court
about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.
Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the
court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the
office for the 2012 election.
"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President
Obama is not qualified to hold the office of
. Instead, this complaint is directed toward
defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United
States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the
Democratic Party.
"This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court's definition
of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born in a country of parents who were
its citizens.'"
That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Minor v.
Happersett from 1875.
"This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or
federal government official. Instead this complaint
asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act
negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the
plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States."
It continues, "Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his
father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this
fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with
knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama's constitutional qualifications.
Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said
qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama's
natural-born status.
"Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party
from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or
assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a
showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not
negligent."
Van Irion, lead counsel for
Liberty Legal Foundation, told
WND that one lawsuit was filed in federal court in Arizona to focus on the
question of defining the term "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution.
"We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that
it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an
FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of
suit," he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal
Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012
election.
Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.
"The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the
Tennessee secretary of state. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent
misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes
more facts regarding Obama's Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent
Social Security Number," he said.
Other lawsuits also are planned, he said.
Irion said that an injunction obtained through the legal actions would
deprive Obama of Democrat Party certification.
"Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any
ballot in the 2012 general election," his organization said in an announcement
about the cases.
"Neither lawsuit discusses Obama's place of birth or his birth certificate.
These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF's lawsuit simply
points out that the Supreme Court has defined 'natural-born citizen' as a person
born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born
citizen's birth. Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can
never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant," the group
said.
"LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of
representations made by the political parties that their candidates are
qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the
National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only
targets the entity responsible for vetting the
Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government.
"The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities
or government procedural advantages," the group said.
LLF also reported it learned that presidential candidates that are registered
with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep
another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered
Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be
followed.
While
WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has
launched a formal law enforcement
investigation that Obama may submit fraudulent
documentation to be put on the state's election ballot in 2012, there also are
other developments, too.
WND
also has reported on an investigation that revealed a major online court
opinion resource, Justia.com, allegedly edited references to the Minor v.
Happersett court decision from dozens on documents it posted online.
The
issue developed when a Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney who brought the
first
legal
challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme
Court, published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court
decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were altered at
Justia.com.
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few
references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of
"natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only
the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born
citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with
the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its
citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives
or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
foreigners."
There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama's occupancy in
the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn't eligible
because he wasn't born in Hawaii as he's said, or that he was never qualified
because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship
(the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the
Founders, with their requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen,"
disqualified dual citizens.
The White House in April released an image of a "Certificate of Live Birth"
from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama's claim that he was born in the
state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have
stated it appears to be a forgery.
The image that, for the purposes of the new lawsuits, is irrelevant:
Obama
long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White
House |
Read more:
Obama's 2012 run to be
non-starter? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=360813#ixzz1c5RVcvQz
