U.S. Supreme Court Considers Presidential Eligibility Requirement Case

Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson (Flickr)

On behalf of former presidential candidates John Dummett and Ed Noonan, the U.S. Justice Foundation recently submitted a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what safeguards are constitutionally mandated in ensuring a candidate is qualified to run. The action is in response to two previous court rulings suggesting California’s secretary of state does not have a responsibility to verify a presidential candidate’s status as a natural born citizen.

The USJF petition cites the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 2, which says state legislatures are tasked with determining eligibility. Given the nation’s current electoral process, the court document holds these lawmakers must provide voters with a choice between candidates who meet constitutional requirements for the position they seek.

The petition chronicles the court history of the issue, including appeals court decisions the petitioners conclude were based on faulty logic. The appeal provides three reasons that, through the role of California’s chief elections officer, the secretary of state should be tasked with verifying a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

First, USJF argues that no sufficient pathway to challenging a candidate’s qualification exists on the federal level. The petition describes the arduous process needed to complete such a challenge through the U.S. Congress, concluding that since the remedy is “so limited in its scope, the question of whether a candidate for President is eligible for the office cannot be effectively address, much less resolved, under current constitutional or statutory law.”

That argument leads to the second point, namely that both the Electoral College and U.S. Congress lack any authority to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

Finally, the petitioners contend that current statutes compelling the California secretary of state to place major political parties’ nominees on the state’s ballot is in direct conflict with the duty to comply with existing election laws.

In its conclusion, the petition asserts that the appellants represented “have demonstrated that questions of eligibility are not properly before any entity other than the court or the chief elections officer of the State of California” and “that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates [sic] eligibility.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: Marine Calls For Obama’s Resignation On The Steps Of The White House

White House Marine

Sergeant Manny E. Vega, after the midterm election Tuesday night, takes the news to President Obama on the steps of the White House. Armed with a megaphone, Vega exercises his First Amendment right and calls out Obama–and does so for about an hour, according to Mad World News.

Vega, a Marine and now a member of the Patriot Militia, has spent nine years in the Marine Corps and has been deployed to Iraq three different times.

Sgt. Vega says Obama should just leave his office and pursue golfing instead of his presidency and repeatedly asks for his resignation. He even goes into a speech about Obama’s birth certificate, which he doesn’t believe to be authentic.

He suggests Obama is an “usurper” and suggests he just leave his job.

“You know Mr. President, the American people have had about enough of you. They have had about enough of all you do against this country and against the Constitution,” Vega said in the megaphone.

“These politicians are our public servants and they will maintain their positions only by serving the American people,” Vega told Mad World News.

Strangely, no Secret Service members came to stop Vega during his demonstration at one o’clock in the morning.

Vega closes out the video by singing a portion of America the Beautiful to the White House walls and the President inside, who is perhaps unaware of the patriot’s demonstration.

H/T Mad World News

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

“Rudy v. Lee” Supreme Court Case Could Put Spotlight On Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility

obama bummed

Last week, our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a patent attorney’s claim that a law mandating an increase in patent application fees was invalid because it was signed into law by President Obama, who does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.” The lower courts in the case ruled that the question of President Obama’s citizenship is a “political question” and thus an issue for Congress, not the courts,­ to decide.

Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a “natural born citizen” has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court–and thus lacked “legal” standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90.00 because of the new law signed by President Obama.

Also, until now, no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the President. Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90.00 and a declaration that, unless he is a “natural born citizen,” President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring what the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a “political question.”

In addition to possessing the standing that prior challengers lacked, Mr. Rudy’s case comes at an opportune time ­ just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning that an Order of the NLRB was invalid because three members of the board were constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Our amicus brief in Rudy argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether members of the NLRB meet the constitutional requirements of their office, it can also decide whether the President of the United States meets the constitutional requirements of his office.

Further, as our brief demonstrated, the requirement that a President be a “natural born citizen” is a fixed legal principle prescribed by the Constitution, with the purpose to insulate the office from foreign influences that would compromise the President’s sworn oath to “defend, preserve, and protect” the Constitution of the United States.

Many object to any challenge to the eligibility of a president, or presidential aspirant; but if the law is to apply equally to every person, Presidents cannot be deemed to be above the law based on vague tests such as whether the case presents “political question.” Indeed, demonstrating that the term “natural born citizen” is a constitutional requirement that has continuing political significance that needs resolution are questions not just about President Obama, but also about Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and others.

Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

 
William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law
370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4, Vienna, Virginia 22180-5615
Phone: (703) 356-5070; Fax: (703) 356-5085
114 Creekside Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602-2429
Phone: (540) 450-8777; Fax: (540) 450-8771
 http://www.lawandfreedom.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What This Group Is Doing Could Be A Game Changer For The Impeachment Of Obama

impeachweek

A group of activists and bloggers are calling for protests across the nation for the impeachment and conviction of Barack Obama.  The event is declared “National Impeach Obama Week” and starts on August 23rd.  The website address is:

ImpeachObamaWeek.net

The protests will include events on freeway overpasses and street protests as well as protests at the offices/town-halls of congressmen and in front of Government buildings.  The organizers believe that Obama should be removed from office for many reasons, only a few of which are provided here.

● Government by dictatorial fiat with lawless executive orders targeting Amnesty for illegal aliens, Obamacare, gun regulation, etc.

● Encouraging massive numbers of illegal aliens to enter the US–because he has stopped enforcing the immigration laws

● Waging illegal wars without the constitutionally-required approval from Congress

● The assassination of three American citizens without due process via drone bombings

● Blatant lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack, Obamacare, etc.

● Funding Al Qaeda and other Jihadist terrorists in Syria and elsewhere

● Gun smuggling to Mexican drug cartels

● Using the Internal Revenue Service as a political weapon against his political enemies

● Frequent bizarre and erratic behavior, which is a disturbing sign of psychological pathology

● Providing shoddily forged identification documents as proof that he is eligible for office

● Constitutional ineligibility for the office that he holds, since he is clearly not a Natural Born Citizen as the Constitution requires

● Overall subversive, anti-American background, which has been confirmed by his actions in office

National Impeach Obama Week is organized by unpaid volunteers.  Contributions are not requested.  It is a truly leaderless, grassroots protest.  Because they are volunteers, the participants are unfettered by the repressive regulations of the IRS.

All groups, individual organizers, and American citizens are invited to join in this national protest.  Another protest is being planned for just before the mid-term elections.

The current endorsers are:

Give Us Liberty

Impeach Obama Now Coalition

Impeach Obama Rallies of Jacksonville, Florida

One Nation Under Fraud

Stand for Liberty

Tea Party Patriots of Brookhaven

Ventura County Tea Party

 

Roger Ogden is an activist in San Diego, California, who has been organizing anti-Obama protests since the Tax Day protests of 2009.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Mainstream Media Could Be Covering Up A Secret So Huge It Would End Obama’s Presidency

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

What would happen if Americans learned that Barack Obama is not just an individual with a history of radical, anti-American associations, but an illegal President and an unindicted felon?

What would happen if Americans learned that the US government, including all members of Congress, and leading figures in the American media knew it and deliberately hid the truth from us?

If such a scenario were true, the political system and the media, as we now know it, would collapse; most politicians and journalists would lose their jobs, and many would go to jail.

Who in government and the media have the greatest incentive to remain silent and run out the clock on Barack Obama?

Obama and his inner circle know that there is a limit to the opposition’s ability to investigate governmental corruption without exposing their own possible complicity.

Does it explain Obama’s promotion of policies seemingly detrimental to the United States, his ability to lie without accountability, and his constant use of political brinkmanship?

Neither Kapiolani Medical Center nor Queens Medical Center, both in Honolulu, Hawaii, have ever confirmed from their hospital records that Obama was born in either hospital. Between November 20th and December 2nd of 2008, 13 separate Hawaiian hospitals were contacted to determine if Obama had been born there, none of which could or would confirm that it was the facility where he was born. Hawaiian law allows the state to issue a certificate of live birth even if the child is born outside Hawaii, provided the parents have been legal residents for at least one year immediately preceding the birth.

If Obama was born in Kenya, he was not even a citizen of the United States at birth. According to the Nationality Act of 1940, revised in June 1952, his American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14, to confer U.S. citizenship. Dunham did not meet that five-year requirement until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

In 1966 or 1967, Stanley Ann Dunham married Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Obama–which made him an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian law. Elementary school records in Indonesia list Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro, his religion as Islam, and his citizenship as Indonesian. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship (if he even had it) when he became an Indonesian citizen around 1967.

Indonesia today still does not allow dual citizenship. Under Indonesia law, once Obama became a naturalized citizen by virtue of adoption, he could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. Upon returning to the United States from Indonesia, Obama eventually satisfied the “five-years-after-age-14″ residency requirement of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, thus making him a naturalized citizen of the United States at age 19.

It may be that Obama’s Indonesian citizenship permitted him to apply to Occidental College as a foreign student, was the reason why Obama may have never registered for Selective Service, and why he could have used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom