Despite lengthy Deptartment of Justice pleas to dismiss the Barnett v Obama case earlier this month, US Federal District Court Judge David Carter decided to “take the matter under submission.” Talk about blowing the wind out of Obama’s sails.
Succintly countering the Obama legal team’s argument that no court has the jurisdiction to rule on Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, heretofore the dominating argument in all other cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, and that the only way to remove Obama is impeachment or to trigger the 25th Amendment, United States Justice Foundation attorney Gary Kreeps sagely and persuasively asserted that both the impeachment statutes and the 25th Amendment assumed a “sitting President”, but that if Obama is ineligible to serve as President, then “he could not be, and never was, a sitting President”, thus rendering those removal remedies inapplicable and clearly leaving jurisdiction to the courts. Lucidity and logic don’t get much better than that, and Judge Carter is listening.
Though technical issues of jurisdiction and standing have plagued eligibility cases in the past, for the first time, a case challenging Obama's eligibility may actually have a chance of a hearing on the merits of the suit itself. And during the hearing on October 5th, Judge Carter actually advised plaintiffs that "if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future", to me an amazingly constructive and encouraging comment from the bench.
If DOJ’s dismissal motion is overcome, discovery pleadings would follow seeking Obama’s birth certificate, college records, passport files, adoption papers and Selective Service files, etc. all in an effort to determine his eligibility once and for all. And if, in the coming days, plaintiffs can, in fact, defeat the DOJ motion to dismiss, Judge Carter has already set a January 26, 2010 trial date.
Another case well worth monitoring is Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress which is being brilliantly pled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. Too much to get into right now, but I will try to keep you posted of significant developments.
Why the serious and lingering doubts about Obama’s constitutional eligibility? In short, per Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, to be eligible to be President/Commander-in-Chief, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” within the context, meaning and intent of the Presidential Clause--not a “native born US Citizen”, not a “US Citizen”, not a “US National”, not a "Naturalized Citizen". (Take note, Bobby Jindal.) Demonstrably, Obama was born a British subject (dual citizenship), and, demonstrably, his father was not a US Citizen nor even an immigrant (Non-Immigrant Student Visa). Thus, by definition, Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen”. Pretty straightforward stuff, I'd say. But, the hot legal potato sizzles and only unencumbered and equitable judicial review can properly resolve this momentous Constititional issue for the country.
Keep your fingers crossed for a judicial breakthrough and timely adjudication.
Saturday Night Cinema: Look Back In Anger - Tonight's Saturday Night Cinema is a taut, tough to watch film, Look Back in Anger. And with this film began the British realism movement. Richard Burton pla...
8 hours ago