Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for office.
“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.
Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and his integrity and legal acumen.”
“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”
The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.
In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama might not have been qualified for Oval Office.
The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of state to verify the eligibility of candidates.
Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected.”
The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”
McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.
Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb. 2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in Chapman’s absence.
Thompson, the brief says, “represented that her office would not investigate the legitimacy of any candidate, thus violating her duties under the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.”
As WND reported, Arpaio and his team concluded that Obama’s long-form birth certificate was a computer-generated forgery.
Klayman, in a previous brief, argued the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”
In his new appeal, Klayman points, as an example, to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s rejection of Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires the president to be at least 35.
In his conclusion, Klayman argues the fact that the election is over does not make the case moot.
“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the legitimacy of the de facto President, a question which lies at the very heart of our American Constitutional Government, were left unresolved for want of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate.”
If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is made that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions will have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety of Alabama citizens stilled.”
If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real concerns.
In an earlier step in the case one year ago, before a panel of Alabama Supreme Court justices, one justice raised doubts about Obama’s eligibility.
The justices denied a petition filed by McInnish seeking to require Obama submit an original birth certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.
Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
“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” is the findings of Arpaio’s investigation.
“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explained. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court.
‘Obama violated the Constitution’
Moore told WND in an interview after his election last November that the country must return to a standard in which the rule of law prevails over politics.
He said Obama violated the Constitution when he bombed Libya, because the Constitution stipulates only Congress shall declare war.
“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” Moore said.
“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold the rule of law.”
Government’s job, Moore said, is to secure and protect those rights.
“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the U.S. Supreme Court.”
- Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible? (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
- Judge Roy Moore To Preside Over Obama Eligibility Case (godfatherpolitics.com)
Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?
Over the past year, both before and since the elections, there have been a number of court cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility. Most of the cases have been dismissed by judges for reasons that are not truly legitimate, but many feel they were dismissed to avoid the political ramifications.
Just last week I wrote about a case that was filed in Florida, that not only challenged Obama’s eligibility, but stated that he was a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States. That case has yet to be heard.
Yet another case filed in Alabama may present one of the best chances of producing a ruling against Obama. In this case, Hugh McInnish and others have filed suit against Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman for failure to properly verify the eligibility of Barack Obama. The case points out that the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s eligibility and that Chapman failed to accurately verify Obama’s eligibility.
The attorney handling this case is the same attorney handling the case in Florida. Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and the Klayman Law Firm in Washington, will hopefully be arguing this case before the Alabama State Supreme Court. The reason the case is going to the state Supreme Court is that a previous judge dismissed the case. In that case the state argued:
“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court… Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should not’ certify the candidate.”
Klayman argues that this admission of the state justifies the actions taken by his clients. They believe that there is sufficient evidence presented by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department Cold Case Posse to indicate that the long form birth certificate presented by the White House on behalf of Obama is in fact a forgery and that its presentation to the people of the United States constitutes fraud. Klayman argues:
“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent.”
“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr. Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary.”
What raises hopes for the success of this case lies with the members of the Alabama state Supreme Court. In an earlier hearing on the same argument the high court denied the petition by McInnish to require that Obama produce an original copy of his birth certificate. When Alabama’s High Court denied that earlier petition Justice Tom Parker filed an unpublished concurrence in the case stating that the charges of forgery were a legitimate concern.
In addition to Justice Parker, Klayman is counting on newly elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. Chief Justice Moore is a strong advocate of constitutional law rather than ruling on the prevailing politics of the time. When Moore won re-election to the state Supreme Court he vowed that he will do his utmost to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the state of Alabama.
In speaking on constitutional law, Moore said that humans will misbehave when they are not constrained by law and that the Constitution was set up with the goal to restraining human excesses. He went on to describe his view of constitutional law as:
“The whole basis of the Constitution is the restraint strength of human power. The only way you can do that is acknowledged that morality and law does come from God. No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power. The members of the legislature don’t and neither does the Supreme Court. The Constitution is the rule of law and my job is to uphold the rule of law.”
Klayman is hoping that the skepticism of Justice Parker and the staunch stand for constitutional law by Chief Justice Moore will be enough to prove their case that Barack Hussein Obama has not provided the proper legal documentation to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for president of the United States as set by the Constitution. This case above all others that I have seen in the past year stands the best chance of winning.
- Judge Roy Moore “No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen”” (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
- Top public-interest attorney refuses to recognize Obama as president (ConservativeActionAlerts.com)
- Obama and Beyoncé: 2 frauds in a pod (veteran-patriot.com)
- Supreme Court justices deny and trash the very US Constitution which gives them their lifetime appointment livelihoods (moralmatters.org)