See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case
Source:
obamawaffles.typepad.com
URL Source: http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/oba ... -in-obama-birth-gate-case.html
Published: Nov 14, 2008
Author: obamawaffles
Post Date: 2008-11-14 20:27:13 by randge
Keywords: Keyes, Obama, Birth certificate
Views: 3150
Comments: 120
November 14, 2008 Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case You gotta love this . . . while Michelle Obama is dreaming of new patterns for the White House china collection and Barack Obama is busy redesigning the presidential seal, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes—who is black and therefore cannot be dismissed as having a racist agenda—petitioned the Superior Court of California yesterday to require proof of Obama's birth certificate.
In his petition, Dr. Keyes points out that someone wanting to get a California drivers license must provide more proof of citizenship than Sen. Barack Obama has provided in his bid to be the next U.S. President:
Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS [Secretary of State], with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license.
Why should this matter? Keyes explains:
62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen.
70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
For a PDF download of Dr. Keyes eye-opening and well-written petition, click here.
Poster Comment:
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-52) not displayed.
.
.
.
#53. To: rowdee (#47)
Rowdee show me me in the constitution where it says the Amerian people don't have standing. Hint it aint there. You have been fooled by usurptions and crooked judges.
Thanks.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
In the first chapter of his book Dreams From My Father, describing his origins, Obama wrote about finding a local Hawaiian newspaper article about his Kenyan father: "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school." So where is that birth certificate???? The dog couldn't had eaten it, because he never had a dog. Marguerite posted on 2008-11-15 08:19:39 ET Reply Trace
In your dreams, OF..... You need to be an affected party in order to have standing in the courts. Because senators and representatives make up the electoral college, they have standing. When the sheeple vote, they are only expressing their preference for prez and vice prez......it was the electoral college that did the actual casting of votes. What do you think the people were boohooiing about with gore/bush?...the 'popular' vote if you will, and the demand to do away with the electoral college.
If the MSM does finally take notice, it is only because it is part of the planned show. I am 99.9% sure he is not a natural born citizen but I would rather he be allowed to serve than face the inevitable riots that would occur if he were disqualified from serving as president. Sadly, most blacks would never understand.
God is always good!
You are dead wrong. The people are who they serve. We have standing they do not. They are merely representatives. I don't care about the electoral collete or blah blah blah. If Obama isn' t born here he isn't eligible. PERIOD end of story. Come on Rowdee you are smarter then this.
I would rather have the riots. I am ready and able to respond. Lets quit sitting in the frying pan. Lets make a stand. If there is going to be a civil war lets get it started before I get to old.
Hey Rowdee did our representatives have "standing" to dump the articles of confederation and adopt the constitution. NO they didn't but they did anyway. The constitution is just a piece of paper that they don't follow anymore. I wish we could return to it it had some good stuff in it. But it isn't a perfect document. It is better then anything our rulers could come up with now but the Bible it is not.
Your answer didn't have one mention from the constitution. Why is that? Couldn't you find anywhere in the constitution where it said we the people don't have standing?
Hey IndieTX, you've seen the look I'm talking about; a real wise ass, 'dirty' look.
If the MSM does finally take notice, it is only because it is part of the planned show. Sure. 10-4. I am 99.9% sure he is not a natural born citizen but I would rather he be allowed to serve than face the inevitable riots that would occur if he were disqualified from serving as president. Think about what you're saying. You prefer using the Constitution as a roll of Charmin to an episode of cathartic and highly instructive insurrection on the part of the politically immature. Sadly, most blacks would never understand. Tough shit.
Look, numbnutz.........I am an American citizen by birth. Regardless of how much you or I or anyone else would wish it, I cannot sue in the name of the United States of America; I cannot sue for you; you cannot sue for me. One needs to have 'standing' to go before the courts. You had nothing to do with the electoral college process. I had nothing to do with the elecyoral college process. So, if we are out of the loop, exactly where do we get the standing in such a particular action? I can say that so and so stole money from the state when they worked there because he/she admitted it; however, I cannot take them to court to force them to repay the state--the state has to be the taker to courter! {and yes, I know what a plaintiff and a defendant are} There could be (notice 'could') instances where, and I'm thinking of power of attorney, people could sue in the name of others, or some such. I'm not an attorney, nor a judge, nor with legal training, which could perhaps clear some of this up.
Furthermore, numbnutz........the Constitution doesn't contain the day to day operational rules and regulations for each branch of the government. I would presume that the Congress, following Article l, Section 8, Paragraph 18, established that the Judicial Branch would be responsible for establishing its rules and regulations for how the courts are to operate. I do know that judges (probably at various levels) have committee(s) that meet, discuss, and suggest various ways to streamline or make more efficient the process of the judiciary system. And gosh, I know that because my daughter works in one of the court systems, and one of the judges she worked with was a member of just such a committee that met at the national level.
We may not have standing, actually we might but it could take some creative thinking.. Anyhoo, if Alan Keyes was on the California ballot then he indeed has standing.
I think any citizen of the USA has standing here. Ignoring the Constitution of the USA affects every citizen. We can't sit idly by and let the only document protecting our basic rights to be so easily ignored. No way! Every citizen of the USA has standing here! The judge didn't want the riots on his hands, that's why he punted this to a higher court.
God is always good!
I see your point but what I am saying is that a judge will not hear us, however in Keyes situation given that he was a candidate on a state ballot, a judge would be obligated to hear it..
And while we still have the numbers to compete !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Among other things, standing has to do with the plaintiff's ability to show his particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, as distinct from a large group of others similarly situated. Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) [excerpt] III. Analysis As previously mentioned, the defendants argue that Hollander lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit. “Article III of the Constitution limits the ‘judicial power’ of the United States to the resolution of ‘cases' and ‘controversies'.... As an incident to the elaboration of this bedrock requirement, [the Supreme] Court has always required that a litigant have ‘standing’ to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears a causal connection to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The party bringing the claim-Hollander here-bears the burden to show his or her standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004). Based on these principles, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130. These holdings include Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974), where the Court ruled that a group of citizens lacked standing to litigate the eligibility, under the Incompatibility Clause,FN5 of members of Congress to serve simultaneously in the military reserves.
So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ??? Nonsense ! The opinion reeks. Of course I don't think the Constitution has anything to do with it !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
I have to agree.. When the simple wording of the Constitution, the highest law in the land, which applies to all of us and is our birthright, doesn't give us "standing" then something is wrong.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
[OF] Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen. He was on the ballot in California. He satisfied all requirements asked of him by California authorities pursuant to California law. The election in California is governed by California law. The election is to select delegates to cast electoral college votes for the state of California. If a state chose to do so, it could have its legislature select the delegates and do away with the popular voting altogether, a practice not uncommon in the early days of the constitutional republic. Show the California state law that was not complied with. If they choose to accept the attestation of candidates, that is California's prerogative. Votes are not cast for the candidates until the delegates to the electoral process do so. Those votes can be challenged when they are counted in congress. The requirements of the Constitution apply to holding the office of president, not to appearing on a state ballot. There is no impediment to a candidate being 34 years old on election day if he is 35 on inauguration day. Your imaginary ballot access requirements only apply in your imaginary world.
PS: I guess a better way to put it is: Which of us ISN'T harmed when the Constitution is subverted? It's our highest law.. It governs all of us, from the poorest among us to the one guy we give the power to destroy the earth. Which American doesn't have an equal stake in this?
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition "Standing to sue" means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636. Standing is a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court; it is the right to take the initial step that frames legal issues for ultimate adjudication by court or jury. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, Okl., 653 P.2d 1230, 1232. The requirement of "standing" is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Guidry v. Roberts, La.App., 331 So.2d 44, 50. Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, D.C.Pa., 358 F.Supp. 684, 695. The doctrine emanates from the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution and from general principles of judicial administration, and seeks to insure that the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness. Campaign Clean Water, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, D.C.Va., 361 F.Supp. 689, 692. Standing is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by governmental action complained of, and focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. v. U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., D.C.N.C, 431 F.Supp. 203, 218. Essence of standing is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it. Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2nd 244, 247.
It's like determining reasonableness only in this case the sufficiency of the injury is determined by "the court" ... each citizen should have standing to sue, but maybe since the election process has deteriorated so much that the "injury" is not cognizable.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives I do not believe they must be from the same state. It can be any senator and any representative. While they must state what their objection is, there would appear to be no restriction on what the objection may be. If the objection is upheld, the vote is rejected. As it would be a political question in the legislature, it would not be subject to any judicial challenge.
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue. See Update on the constitutional crisis: Obama can't prove he is a natural born citizen
There are no warlike people--just warlike leaders. – Ralph Bunche
Nope... it is not the sufficiency of the injury or the severity of injury, but the particularity of injury and the particularity of interest in the sought after court remedy. It is finding that there is no case or controversy properly framed before the court for adjudication. Berg and others could not get their case heard in Federal court.
Did you vote for Obama? Or are you to ashamed to admit it?
I notice you don't quote the constitution. Just usurpers opinions. You think you know it all but in your arrogance you became a fool.
He's making a legal argument... Either rebut with a legal argument or mitigate it with another argument of substance.. Don't just wave your ass at him..
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
NO he is spreading usurper laywer doubletalk bullshit. They guy is in the can for Obama. Probably works on its campaign. I agree with what you said above. 74 72 Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.
Legally, I'm sure he's correct.. Morally? Well, that's another question entirely. Hit him there.. Don't taunt. It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
Well, that's another question entirely. Agreed Chan is immoral..............Ok you didn't say that I did.
No it makes Chan look like a statist Obama ass kisser. Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing. Sure the courts shouldn't hear a million cases if a million are brought. Answering the question one time for one case would suffice.
Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated. I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense. Here is how the law works in reality imo. The supreme court is usually not anonymous. Why is that you think? If they were reading the law and interpreting it truthfully all the decisions should be anonymous shouldn't they? You get two people up there (lawyer scum) and they blab their mouth. Then the judge makes a decision based on their opinions and beliefs of right and wrong. Then they come up with some fancy words and rationalize it and say it is the law or some precedent or something. Well 3 other of the judges may have disagreed. So what it amounts to is a vote. Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".
Chan- It's rote-speak. Experience. U- Unsure how you work.. Me?- I deal in concepts..
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
Right and wrong.
Continuing efforts in court will be a waste of time. To prove Obama is a citizen only requires a showing that he was born in Hawaii. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii. Anyone wanting to invest $5 can submit that information to the authorities in Hawaii and get a letter of verification that the information is correct (or not) as on file. Letters of Verification Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request. Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies. The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter. Only the information provided is verified, but that is more than ample to prove natural born citizenship, or lack thereof. Anyone wanting additional personal information from some "vault" record will have to get it from the state of Hawaii. They have the original official record. Nobody else does. There is no other source to obtain it from. Andy Martin tried. He had standing there to try to obtain the information but the court found its release would be contrary to state law. Suits brought in state court against the state officials will be tossed, possibly for being untimely after election day. Berg certainly had no chance to obtain the documents in discovery as he attempted. You can only demand copies of documents actually in the possession of the person they are demanded from. What he asked for is in the possession of the state of Hawaii. A court cannot very well order Obama to produce documentation he does not have. A court will not demand that the state official now demand information that relevant state law did not require for ballot access in the first place. A federal suit brought by an individual will be dismissed for lack of standing. There is no federal official invested with any relevant oversight authority. If there is to be a challenge to demand documentation from Obama, it would appear that it will have to be in the Congress.
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?
You are, of course, entitled to claim your own system of law without precedent. The American system, derived from the British system, cannot function without precedent. Absent recognition of precedent, the system would result in chaos with no predictability whatever. The alternative is the "code civil" as in Latin countries or the state of Louisiana which retains the Napoleanic code system. There is always your third alternative -- just invent your own body of laws and a legal system to go with it.
Comments (94 - 120) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#54. To: Old Friend (#51)
#55. To: noone222 (#54)
#56. To: Old Friend (#53)
#57. To: randge (#0)
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.
#58. To: rowdee (#56)
#59. To: RickyJ (#57)
but I would rather he be allowed to serve than face the inevitable riots
#60. To: rowdee (#56)
#61. To: Rowdee (#53)
Rowdee show me me in the constitution where it says the Amerian people don't have standing.
#62. To: IndieTX (#42)
And that IS exactly what they look like.
#63. To: RickyJ (#57)
#64. To: Old Friend (#61)
#65. To: Old Friend (#61)
#66. To: rowdee, Old Friend (#64)
#67. To: Lady X (#66)
#68. To: RickyJ (#67)
#69. To: Old Friend (#59)
Lets make a stand. If there is going to be a civil war lets get it started before I get to old.
#70. To: Old Friend, farmfriend (#32)
Bullshit. "we the people" have standing per constitution.
forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1045201
#71. To: nolu_chan (#70)
(Edited)
the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
#72. To: noone222 (#71)
#73. To: Old Friend (#22)
[nc] Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California.
#74. To: All (#72)
#75. To: noone222 (#71)
So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ???
Standing to sue doctrine.
#76. To: nolu_chan (#75)
#77. To: farmfriend (#37)
If I understand the US code correctly (go to section 15), to challenge the electoral votes as they are being counted in Congress, requires a minimum of one House member and one Senate member from the same state, to submit in writing, during the time of counting, the reason for their challenge to the votes from a particular state being counted.
#78. To: nolu_chan (#75)
#79. To: noone222 (#76)
It's like determining reasonableness only in this case the sufficiency of the injury is determined by "the court"
#80. To: nolu_chan (#73)
#81. To: nolu_chan (#79)
#82. To: Old Friend (#80)
#83. To: Jhoffa_ (#82)
(Edited)
He's making a legal argument...
#84. To: Old Friend (#83)
(Edited)
#85. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)
Morally?
#86. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)
It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.
#87. To: Old Friend (#85)
#88. To: Jhoffa_ (#87)
Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated.
#89. To: Old Friend (#88)
Chan is just quoting precedent..
#90. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)
U- Unsure how you work..
#91. To: christine (#78)
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue.
hawaii.gov/health/vital-r...ecords/vital_records.html
#92. To: nolu_chan (#91)
. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii.
#93. To: Old Friend (#88)
Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".
.
.
.