Love It: Lawsuit Filed On Democratic Party For Them To Define If Obama Is Qualified

[USArmyRetired]

Here is the website for Liberty Legal Foundation. The guy who runs it named Van Irion is definitely a Constitutional attorney and he obviously knows Constitutional citizenship laws when it comes to eligibility of Article 2 Section 1. This lawsuit will spell big trouble for the Democratic National Party and DNC.

About Van Irion » Liberty Legal Foundation


Here is one of the lawsuits: Looks pretty good.

http://www.libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Federal-DNC-Complaint.pdf

 

[Lakhota]

 

[USArmyRetired]

That's exactly what Obama supporters are gonna be doing once they really realize he was actually ineligible.

 

[Lakhota]

Yeah, we're all skeert shitless.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Yeah, we're all skeert shitless.

You should be if you are a Obama supporter.


This news is making the rounds today:
Courthouse News Service

 

[USArmyRetired]

drop the effing issue and focus on his lack of leadership, poor economy, lousy h/c plan etc....

No, the Constitution comes first. That's why people take a oath to defend it and possibly die protecting it. Again, the Constitution must come first over all else. Article 2 Section 1 has been violated and subverted.

 

[rdean]

It's clearly amazing that the liberals on this board lack the intellectual capacity to discuss this situation about the Democratic Party and Legal Foundation. It is truly a sign that liberals have no insight into how to discuss anything of importance in a rational logical manner. Michael Savage is right, Liberalism is indeed a disease of the brain.

Here is your "intellectual capacity":

 

[CentristFiasco]

Obama Sr. was a Student at the University of Hawaii as a Foreign Exchange Student in the Early 60s. I'm pretty sure that Obama Sr. wouldn't be considered as a natural-born citizen but as a Citizen of the United States neither the less because he would have to get citizenship to attend here as a student. The Supreme Court needs to clarify what they mean by "natural-born citizen" because in the Original Constitution it clearly states "natural-born citizen or Citizen of the United States" who legally resides in the U.S. for at least six years. Obama Sr. is considered to be a Citizen of the United States because he became a Citizen when he transferred here and stayed until the mid-60s, he was in the U.S. in the late 50s. The new law that was passed in the 21st Century over this issue is unconstitutional from the beginning.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Obama Sr. was a Student at the University of Hawaii as a Foreign Exchange Student in the Early 60s. I'm pretty sure that Obama Sr. wouldn't be considered as a natural-born citizen but as a Citizen of the United States neither the less because he would have to get citizenship to attend here as a student. The Supreme Court needs to clarify what they mean by "natural-born citizen" because in the Original Constitution it clearly states "natural-born citizen or Citizen of the United States" who legally resides in the U.S. for at least six years. Obama Sr. is considered to be a Citizen of the United States because he became a Citizen when he transferred here and stayed until the mid-60s, he was in the U.S. in the late 50s. The new law that was passed in the 21st Century over this issue is unconstitutional from the beginning.

You are absolutely clueless. Obama's father was not a citizen and no you don't have to become a citizen to attend college here. Obama's father was asked to leave the country while at Harvard in 1964. That proves my point you don't know what you are talking about. Obama's father was a British National and the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed the status of his children which means Obama Jr. This is declared on Barack Obama's campaign website Fight The Smears. Here is the paragraph:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

What does that last sentence mean refering to Obama jr.? It means he was also a British Subject when born in 1961. A British Subject is not a natural born Citizen even if born in Hawaii. This means Obama was and still is not a natural born Citizen which means born to U.S. citizen parents (plural) like ALL post grandfather clause presidents prior to Obama. He is not eligible and this new lawsuit tactic will expose this.

Also show me a cotton pickin link that proves you had to reside for 6 years to become president and describe why this 21st century new law is unConstitutional.

 

[Mustang]

What a brilliant serious tactic by the Liberty Legal Foundation and Presidential Candidate John Dummett filing these multiple suits and they will have to be answered. This is a maneuver designed not to go directly at Obama by name but instead the National Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee for them to confirm what a natural born Citizen is before they put a candidate on the Presidential ballot for 2012. The lawsuits were both filed in Arizona at the State and Federal Level. This is to make sure the candidate is indeed a natural born Citizen and not a Citizen and qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1. I remember that Alan Keyes filed suit directly against Obama but it was after the election and it was dismissed because the Judge stated that if he had filed it during the campaign as a candidate, then he would have had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. You see, it was discovered after Obama was sworn in that the Official Certification Of Nomination Forms by the Democratic National Committe and the Democratic National Party of Hawaii failed to explicitly include the language required by law in HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) stating that Obama was legally qualified as a natural born Citizen under the Constitution. The legal wording was included in Clinton, Gore and Kerry's forms when they ran for president.


Lawsuits seeking to stop Democrats from certifying candidate's qualified
Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements for a president were finished, something new has appeared on the horizon.

Or in this case, the court docket.

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.

Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.

"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.

Another Article Here:

Breaking: Liberty Legal Foundation and Presidential Candidate John Dummett File Multiple Eligibility Lawsuits Against Barack Hussein Obama| The Post & Email

Important Points:
■Lawsuit asks court to enjoin National Democratic Party from certifying Obama as Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President


■Lack of certification by Democratic Party would prevent Obama from appearing on the ballot in the 2012 general election


■Lawsuit asks court to confirm Supreme Court’s definition of “natural-born citizen” as having two parents that are BOTH U.S. citizens at time of birth. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).


■Obama’s place of birth and birth certificate are irrelevant and not discussed


Exerpt of Text:

lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.

Despite numerous legal challenges, no lawsuit to date has been able to get a hearing on the merits related to Obama’s natural-born status. LLF has studied all of these cases in order learn from the rulings and avoid the pitfalls that stopped those lawsuits. LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties, that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government. The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages.

LLF also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered Presidential Candidate John Dummett. Mr. Dummett is a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.

Because LLF has a lead plaintiff that is a Presidential Candidate, and because that plaintiff is also a Liberty Legal member, Liberty Legal has standing to sue as well. If one plaintiff has standing to sue, all plaintiffs have standing to sue.



Copies of the filed complaints are attached to this release.

Dated: 10/26/11

I thought conservatives were against the filing of frivolous lawsuits because it crowds the court docket with someone's nonsense at the expense of more serious matters.

 

[USArmyRetired]

What a brilliant serious tactic by the Liberty Legal Foundation and Presidential Candidate John Dummett filing these multiple suits and they will have to be answered. This is a maneuver designed not to go directly at Obama by name but instead the National Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee for them to confirm what a natural born Citizen is before they put a candidate on the Presidential ballot for 2012. The lawsuits were both filed in Arizona at the State and Federal Level. This is to make sure the candidate is indeed a natural born Citizen and not a Citizen and qualified to meet Article 2 Section 1. I remember that Alan Keyes filed suit directly against Obama but it was after the election and it was dismissed because the Judge stated that if he had filed it during the campaign as a candidate, then he would have had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. You see, it was discovered after Obama was sworn in that the Official Certification Of Nomination Forms by the Democratic National Committe and the Democratic National Party of Hawaii failed to explicitly include the language required by law in HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) stating that Obama was legally qualified as a natural born Citizen under the Constitution. The legal wording was included in Clinton, Gore and Kerry's forms when they ran for president.


Lawsuits seeking to stop Democrats from certifying candidate's qualified
Obama's 2012 run to be non-starter?

Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements for a president were finished, something new has appeared on the horizon.

Or in this case, the court docket.

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.

Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.

"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.

Another Article Here:

Breaking: Liberty Legal Foundation and Presidential Candidate John Dummett File Multiple Eligibility Lawsuits Against Barack Hussein Obama| The Post & Email

Important Points:
■Lawsuit asks court to enjoin National Democratic Party from certifying Obama as Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President


■Lack of certification by Democratic Party would prevent Obama from appearing on the ballot in the 2012 general election


■Lawsuit asks court to confirm Supreme Court’s definition of “natural-born citizen” as having two parents that are BOTH U.S. citizens at time of birth. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).


■Obama’s place of birth and birth certificate are irrelevant and not discussed


Exerpt of Text:

lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.

Despite numerous legal challenges, no lawsuit to date has been able to get a hearing on the merits related to Obama’s natural-born status. LLF has studied all of these cases in order learn from the rulings and avoid the pitfalls that stopped those lawsuits. LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties, that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government. The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages.

LLF also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered Presidential Candidate John Dummett. Mr. Dummett is a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.

Because LLF has a lead plaintiff that is a Presidential Candidate, and because that plaintiff is also a Liberty Legal member, Liberty Legal has standing to sue as well. If one plaintiff has standing to sue, all plaintiffs have standing to sue.



Copies of the filed complaints are attached to this release.

Dated: 10/26/11

I thought conservatives were against the filing of frivolous lawsuits because it crowds the court docket with someone's nonsense at the expense of more serious matters.

Show me why this lawsuit agaist the DNC is considered frivolous to you? Explain in full detail to prove your point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Minor is a poor precedent to cite in an effort to make the ‘argument’ as to a definitive determination of ‘natural born citizen.’ In US v Wong Kim Ark the Court expanded on Minor and confirmed the long-standing doctrine that one born in the United States, regardless of his parents’ citizenship, is a ‘natural born citizen’:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

In Ankeny v Daniels, the Indiana court of appeals ruled:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

The Indiana appeals court also noted that:

President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975).

Consequently it makes no difference whom the birthers sue: a state governor, the president, or in this case the DNC. The fact remains all persons fall into one of two citizenship categories: natural born – citizenship by blood or soil, or naturalized. The president is clearly the former, and this new suit will fail accordingly, just as the other 74 have.

Source for cited above:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

 

[BDBoop]

It's clearly amazing that the liberals on this board lack the intellectual capacity to discuss this situation about the Democratic Party and Legal Foundation. It is truly a sign that liberals have no insight into how to discuss anything of importance in a rational logical manner. Michael Savage is right, Liberalism is indeed a disease of the brain.

Here is your "intellectual capacity":

Why on God's Green (speaking of little green apples) with that avatar, that sig and those posts, would he expect libs to take him seriously!?

 

[USArmyRetired]

Minor is a poor precedent to cite in an effort to make the ‘argument’ as to a definitive determination of ‘natural born citizen.’ In US v Wong Kim Ark the Court expanded on Minor and confirmed the long-standing doctrine that one born in the United States, regardless of his parents’ citizenship, is a ‘natural born citizen’:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

In Ankeny v Daniels, the Indiana court of appeals ruled:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

The Indiana appeals court also noted that:

President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975).

Consequently it makes no difference whom the birthers sue: a state governor, the president, or in this case the DNC. The fact remains all persons fall into one of two citizenship categories: natural born – citizenship by blood or soil, or naturalized. The president is clearly the former, and this new suit will fail accordingly, just as the other 74 have.

Source for cited above:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Wrong. Minor is binding precedent regarding Article 2 Section 1 accordingly and has not been overturned. The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Ankeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Ankeny Court has it backwards. The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question. The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”. Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment

 

[rightwinger]

Here is the website for Liberty Legal Foundation. The guy who runs it named Van Irion is definitely a Constitutional attorney and he obviously knows Constitutional citizenship laws when it comes to eligibility of Article 2 Section 1. This lawsuit will spell big trouble for the Democratic National Party and DNC.

About Van Irion » Liberty Legal Foundation


Here is one of the lawsuits: Looks pretty good.

http://www.libertylegalfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Federal-DNC-Complaint.pdf

The guy is a moron

Political parties don't get to define what the qualifications are for president

This case will be sent packing with a heap of judicial ridicule

 

[JakeStarkey]

SNIP

The judge will fine plaintiff's for a friviolus lawsuit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SNIP

The OP was fail from the start. No need to refute it.

 

[SAT]

With ridicule, and possibly fines. I believe the courts are getting fed up with this nonsense.

 

[USArmyRetired]

With ridicule, and possibly fines. I believe the courts are getting fed up with this nonsense.

This a high prominent Constitutional attorney filing this case this time AND as one Judge stated from a prior ruling, the only person who has standing to challenge a candidate or is another candidate. Presidential candidate John Dummett is a registered FEC candidate and he has standing. There are no ifs or buts, this is serious.

Van Irion Lawfirm:
Knoxville Attorney | Patent Attorney | Small Business Lawyer | Entrepreneur | Civil Litigation | Knox County Contract Law | East Tennessee Law Firm

 

[JakeStarkey]

With ridicule, and possibly fines. I believe the courts are getting fed up with this nonsense.

This a high prominent Constitutional attorney filing this case this time . . .

And there is still no standing to force the Dems to do anything in the first place, and the judge will fine the plaintiffs in the second.

If there was any reason to ever question the weakening sentience of the white race, you, USAR, would be the poster child for its decline.