Issues

Custom Search

  

  

Obama is shredding the Constitution
 



help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.

The Issue

The issue that the court must settle is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a "natural born" citizen of the United States as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution. 

The question remains unanswered in any United States court.

Most of the cases that worked their way through various state and federal courts concerned whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii.

At his web site, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii and had it verified by a private website called "FactCheck.org."

This was his response to all parties requesting proof he was actually born in Hawaii.  The audacity of this stunt generated a rush of litigation to have Obama’s credentials verified.  Of course, while there is no Constitutional requirement for a birth certificate to be tendered, ordinary people could not understand why Obama was fighting so hard to prevent anyone from seeing his genuine documents apparently on file in Hawaii.

It was this attitude of defiance which stimulated citizens across the nation -- who are required to present an original birth certificate to any number of Government agencies -- to institute litigation challenging Obama’s eligibility.

Obama is the first President in our national history who -- at the time of his birth -- was openly subject to and governed by the laws of another nation.  The issue which needs to be heard in court is whether such a person’s citizenship will be considered "natural born" for the rest of our nation’s history.

Allowing this issue to avoid judicial interpretation will forever raise questions about Obama’s claim to office, and it will set a precedent that two generations of citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become President and Commander in Chief.

Daddynoz Files Quo Warranto
One of our members, a military man who uses the screen name "daddynoz," has decided to commit to a Quo Warranto in DC.  He is asking the court to determine what constitutes a "natural born" citizen, and is currently awaiting a response from Attorney General Eric Holder and the Attorney General of DC.

Questions placed before the court:

1. Is mere jus soli required for "natural born" citizenship?

2. Is consideration of the citizenship of the parents a requirement for "natural born" status?

3. Is there, in fact, an unambiguous "natural" (i.e. immutable) state of citizenship that only results from birth within the United States to parents who are Americans (naturalized or born)?

4. Can the question of children born within the United States to illegal immigrants having greater claim to the presidency than do children born to American parents, serving at the direction of the Armed Forces, abroad be reconciled?

5. Is President Obama, whose citizenship is solely the product of a latter 19th century court decision, a "natural born Citizen" and thus eligible for his current office per the constitutional requirement?

We'll be following dadynoz's Quo Warranto, and wish him success in his endeavor.

Some answers to daddynoz's questions can be found
here . . .
U.S. Attorney:  Nothing Americans Can Do About Eligibility
Bob Unruh says a team of U.S. attorneys based in California has argued to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that there essentially is nothing the American public can do to determine if Barack Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the Oval Office, and if they are injured, at least they are all injured alike.

The arguments were presented in a brief submitted by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute in defense of a lawsuit that was brought by a long list of plaintiffs, including a presidential candidate, members of the military, members of the state legislature and others against Obama.

The plaintiffs had asked the appeals court to reopen the arguments because the district court's ruling, left standing, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority."

That earlier brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.

The case involves several dozen additional plaintiffs, including ambassador Alan Keyes, who are being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and are filing their pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.

The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.

However, Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no injury -- they didn't have "standing" -- and that the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues instead of a court.

The new government brief said that the lower court was correct because "appellants cannot demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable to defendants' conduct as would be necessary to establish standing."

The attorneys brushed off concerns that a violation of the Constitution was a serious matter and caused any injury to the plaintiffs, saying, "To put it another way, the relief sought by appellants, consisting of a determination by the court of the eligibility of the president to hold office, and, possibly, his removal from office, would have 'no more directly and tangibly benefitted [them] than … the public at large."

Further, the U.S. attorneys argued that a possible violation of the Constitution is a political issue, not judicial.

Continue reading here . . .

Why are U. S. attorneys, civil servants, representing Obama in this personal matter?  We know it was illegal to pay for Bauer's services from the Obama '08 Campaign.

These Justice Department attorneys have used this argument before.  Since Obama is screwing ALL of the People equally, no individual can claim a loss, and therefore no individual has standing,

And they're getting away with it.

Holder is holding his thumb of the scales of justice in Obama's Justice Department.  This stonewalling; the Panthers case; the biased enforcement; Ft Hood was a diversity problem; terrorist, who don't deserve Geneva Conventions protection, being given Constitutional rights and tax payer paid for lawyers.

Obama's Justice Department has become a private law firm dedicated to representing the political Left and jihad.
It Just Won't Go Away
Bob Unruh says it just doesn't appear to be going away.

The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date.  While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.
    


Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen.  But even if this case falls, it doesn't appear the issue itself will fade.

Continue reading here . . .
Why The Supreme Court Is Compelled To Hear Obama Eligibility Case
HillBuzz notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new "conference" in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister, on Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency, and researches WHY the court could be compelled to do this.

It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" on it -- since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1960s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather.  At the time of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is given.

This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed "Soetobakh" by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.

In Indonesia, there are no last names.  The man who adopted Obama is routinely called "Lolo Soetoro," but in reality his name in Indonesia is just Soetoro.  "Lolo" is a nickname -- but on documents in the West, Soetoro seems to have used the name "Lolo Soetoro" because he needed to complete a first and last name line on documentation.

There are a couple names that could appear on the birth certificate Hawaii has on file for the current occupant of the Oval Office because of the odd circumstances involved in Indonesian names.  Here are a few options:
    

  Soetobakh Dunham

  Soetobakh Soetoro

  Barry Soetoro

  Soetoro Soetobakh

    
The reason Obama has spent so much time and money hiding his original birth certificate is because his adoption in the late 1960s, and the bizarre, Klingon-sounding name "Soetobakh" are just so strange and difficult to explain to Americans.

Continue reading here . . .
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010 - 2011
All right reserved