Eligibility attorney: Obama needs impeaching 'We don't have a constitutional republic any longer'
Eligibility attorney: Obama needs impeaching
'We don't have a constitutional republic any longer'
One of the attorneys who argued before a Georgia judge today that Barack Obama is ineligible to have his name on the state’s 2012 presidential ballot says the president’s decision to snub the court system and ignore the hearing is a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundation of the United States.
“We have a president who has openly refused to comply with a legal order of the judicial branch,” Van Irion told WND after today’s hearing before Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi concluded in Atlanta.
Malihi’s recommendation on the issue, whether Obama’s name should be on the ballot or not, is expected later and eventually will end up before state Secretary of State Brian Kemp.
Irion, of Liberty Legal Foundation, represents David Weldon, who filed a complaint under state law challenging Obama.
David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth are represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and
Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell are represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
The White House was notified of the hearing, and Obama’s lawyer filed a motion to quash the subpoena for Obama to appear at the hearing to testify, and to bring with him records of his birth.
Malihi refused, noting that, “Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend.”
His order said, “Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority.”
He said, “Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski then told Kemp that he and his client were not going to participate in the hearing because the judge was letting attorneys “run amok,” and Kemp responded that not participating would be at Obama’s “peril.”
Irion told WND a decision on the substance of the hearing was important to get on the record. He said often when one party simply refuses to show up for a hearing, a default judgment is the result.
He said in this case he would not have wanted such a result, because that would not have allowed the evidence to be entered into the record, which undoubtedly will find its way into an appellate court system.
“At this point, there’s really nothing we can do [about Obama.] If he can ignore the judiciary, we don’t have a constitutional republic any longer. We have a dictatorship,” he said.
Irion said that there are procedures and actions available, such as seeking a writ of mandamus from a higher court, or Obama’s attorney could simply have argued the court doesn’t have jurisdiction.
“They didn’t do that,” he said. “They didn’t follow the process. They just said, ‘I don’t agree with the court, I’m just going to ignore it.’ That’s one thing you can’t do.”
He said the actions very clearly state that Obama believes he is above the laws that are applied to the rest of society.
And he said there should be consequences.
“Whenever a president does that, they have essentially said, ‘I am above the law, above the Constitution, above other branches.’ That is an impeachable offense. They very foundations of our system of government are at stake here.”
He noted even Nixon during Watergate and Clinton during the scandals over his sexual antics seemed to follow the procedures.
Irion noted that Obama previously stepped on the wrong side of the law in attacking Arizona’s immigration plan, in taking over banks and car companies, and other situations.
But he said this is the “most blatant” example.
It’s one thing to maneuver and manipulate, he noted, but another simply to refuse to deal with such a court order.
“If this doesn’t lead to impeachment proceedings, everyone in Congress is as responsible,” he said.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibili...ds-impeaching/
What happened at Obama-no-show trial
Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps
Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.
The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.
His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”
The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1975 Supreme Court opinion that 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.”
Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”
The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.
Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.
Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.
He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.
“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”
Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.
She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.
Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.
Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.
The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.
He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.
Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.
“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”
But the judge thought otherwise.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.
Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.
The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
