Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Click to Donate to Vibe.us to Help Keep the Site Up and Running


> Birther - President Elect Obama > Birther - Natural Born Citizen Requirement to be President > Birther - Barnett v. Obama (CA), DOJ's Motion to Dismiss

Birther - Barnett v. Obama (CA), DOJ's Motion to Dismiss
 Moderated by: Forseti  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
AuthorPost
Forseti
Administrator
 

Joined: Thu Nov 27th, 2008
Location: California USA
Posts: 75
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

 Posted: Sun Sep 20th, 2009 06:41 pm1st Post
 PM  Quote  Reply 

 


Read the D.O.J.'s Motion to Dismiss Here




Regarding the D.O.J. Motion to Dismiss, above, right off the bat I see four major constitutional questions here.  One, may the voters waive an Article in the US Constitution?  Two, may Congress waive an Article in the US Constitution?  Three, may the Constitution be amended by a simple majority of the voters?  Four, may Congress amend the Constitution without complying with Article V?



Quickly, I have two points:



1. If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then a 12 year old Chinese citizen who produces a fraudulent US birth certificate can get elected president of the United States.



2. Article II is a guarantee to each individual, which cannot be waived by the majority or Congress, that only a natural born citizen, who is at least 35 years old, may be elected as president.




______________________________________________________




Read a very liberal blogger's interpretive observation on the actual October 5, 2009 Barnett v. Obama hearing here.




After reading the observation, I have concluded that Judge Carter was left in the dark about a lot of arguments that needed to be made.  I wish that I had been there.  I could have handled every one of the DOJ's arguments.  That aside, Taitz or Kreep should have just said, "We are not asking you to remove the president.  We just want one thing -- to see his original 1961 vital record on file in Hawaii that the posted Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.  That's all we want, but Obama has locked down, boarded up, and stored away every piece of evidence that could be reasonably calculated to lead to this vital record, and hence the truth."

Moving along, can you believe that Taitz and Kreep did not respond to the burden of proof argument by saying, "Obama admitted through his actions that he had the burden of proof with respect to the natural born citizen issue when he submitted his Certification of Live Birth to the DNC (and the FEC, I believe), and then posted it on his website for all the world to see prior to the election."
 
I must tell you, I was very disappointed at counsels' arguments.  Taitz was all over the map with cursory legal arguments.  As for Kreep, he should have showed up on time and been more willing to pin down the standing issues with better arguments.  Instead, he failed.  So did Taitz.
 
On a closing note, I had hoped that these attorneys would have been smart enough to respond to the judge's question about why no one in the legislature did anything about it by saying, "Obama posted his Certification of Live birth on the Internet claiming it to be his original birth certificate without telling anyone that it was in fact, merely a summary of his 1961 vital record  -- just a summary, mind you.   A summary of five possible documents, each of which has varying degrees of suspect trustworthiness and reliability.  When the legislature and the people are deceived, all subsequent action and inaction based on the deception is not credible or trustworthy, and therefor needs to be scrutinized.
 

Last edited on Wed Oct 7th, 2009 02:12 pm by Forseti


 Current time is 07:58 am





WowUltra 1.15 Copyright © 2007-2008 by Jim Hale
Page processed in 0.1123 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 20 queries executed.