Posts Tagged ‘Judge Carter’

Will State Legislators Allow the Life Support Plug on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to be Pulled? – The BOPAC Report

February 12, 2010

The BOPAC Report:

 Will State Legislators Allow the Life Support Plug on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to be Pulled?

First the good news, Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution is still alive. The bad news is that she is on life support. There is a cure but the political side effects may be so severe that politicians lacking sufficient strength of character and commitment might allow the plug to be pulled unless they receive sufficient support and encouragement from their constituents.

Candidates from both Parties stand in the hospital wings, watching with intense interest.  Coffin builders for fallen Constitutional protections have their measuring tapes out.  Those who hold the view that the Constitution is an obstacle to their ‘enlightened’ purposes (the media and far left Democrats) are working as hard as they can to rewrite history, shape public opinion, and plan their bounty. Politicians on the national stage, with the exception of the brave few, are trying to distance themselves from Article II, Section 1 even though she is part of a Constitution that has nurtured and given direction to America throughout its history. These politicians cry out – Why can’t this be easier or least done in secret?

Advocates from all parts of America have tried their best to plea the case for the life and continuing benefits that Article II, Section 1 bestows upon America, her people and her military.  Advocates like Philip Berg, Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon and others have put their reputations, fortunes, and personal safety on the line to uphold the oaths they took when they joined their profession. Thank you for your continuing efforts Advocates. Even though it may not be politically correct, there are many of We The People praying for you.

Thus far every plea has fallen on the deaf ears of brethren on the bench – who of course have also pledged protection and defense for the incredible document of which Article II, Section 1 is a part.   We The People could see them sitting stately in their robes trying to consider every possible consequence that might flow from their decision – political, legal, moral, and yes personal.  Then one by one they punted, as any survival-trained politician would do.

We could almost hear each whisper:  Shall I speak and honor the words ‘natural born citizen’ knowing they require of those seeking America’s highest Office and Command of her military to have no other allegiance?

With Judge Carter, we could almost see him turn the voice in his head, his voice, off.  We all had such high hopes for Carter given that he verbalized his intent of getting to the bottom of it all, and he was an ex-Marine.  He had recognized how big an issue it was. What words might have persuaded him?

Were these Judges, being creatures of both politics and the law, simply overwhelmed by their own political and/or personal interests?  The written language of Article II, Section 1 was clear enough, her history was clear enough, and the why of Article II, Section 1 was easily understandable and continues to this day. But the common thread, every case before the bench involved the first African-American who was to be elected to the Office of the Presidency; and as such, each case carried so many people’s hopes, dreams and expectations. Each case was a political minefield.

Surely, they must have struggled with the decision?  Could it be that some of those standing vigil, wringing their hands in anticipation, as Article II, Section 1 clings to her intended life – approached the magistrates at some point with dire warnings of rioting in the streets, solace that it’s not that big a deal, that Obama’s eligible but a deep dark family secret would have be revealed should proof be required, or maybe something else.  Who knows in national politics?

Nevertheless, how could any Judge put aside the maxim of legal training?

Politiae legibus non leges politiis adaptandae’ – Politics are to be adapted to the laws, and not the laws to politics.

Even though cases remain that can provide healing to Article II, Section 1 and restore the integrity of America’s justice system, it looks more and more like State legislatures hold the only power of resurrection vis-à-vis laws that will require candidates for the Presidency to provide documentation establishing they are ‘natural born citizens’.

Unless something extraordinary occurs, the next Presidential election will not have the watchful gaze of Article II, Section 1 enhancing America’s security.

Try to imagine the run up to 2012.

Political Parties get their eyes fixed on the Presidency and begin the process of selecting the candidate with the biggest coat tails to carry their hopes and aspirations, will anyone worry about complying with the ghostly remains of an Article II, Section 1 that has been effectively drawn and quartered by Judges and Politicians wilting before the possibility of political/societal consequences should they do their duties? 

Will any Secretary of State or Elections Official now dare to raise their voice without a strong statutory mandate requiring their scrutiny?

It’s doubtful.

Thankfully, there are those fighting for the protections that Article II, Section 1 provides and guarding her life support plug.  The call for State Legislator Specialists is going out.

States needn’t wait on the outcomes of the current eligibility lawsuits of Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, or Philip Berg. The prospects for their success are fairly close to nil – not because their cases lack merit, but because their judges lack political courage.  Make note that every court thus far has demonstrated its incredible reluctance to face the virus attacking Article II, Section 1.  Of the scores of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, not one judge has allowed discovery that could determine the factual reality threatening Article II, Section 1. 

Can anyone imagine a future plaintiff willing to go through the expense and the likelihood of facing the gauntlet of abusive magistrates who’d thought they’d made it abundantly clear that they do not want to deal with the issue of compromised allegiances to the United States?  Talk about having a chilling effect on protecting Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution!

Don’t lose faith, miracles do happen. Several legislators in different parts of the country are answering the call for specialized treatment.

For example in Arizona:

HB 2441: A large group of Republican lawmakers have signed on in support of HB 2441, which would require presidential candidates to provide copies of their birth certificates to prove they are eligible to become president and are not foreign-born secret Muslims. If the Arizona secretary of state determines the documents don’t measure up, the candidate cannot be on the ballot in Arizona. HB 2441 is awaiting a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee….

Right now, mid-February, the treatment so desperately needed is awaiting a hearing in an Arizona House Judiciary Committee.  Hopefully, the House Judiciary Committee is not set up like one of the ‘death panels’ envisioned in Obama’s healthcare takeover.

The legislation the Arizona team of specialists is trying to enact is clear, to the point and should be moved forward because time is short. I applaud them loudly.

However, it looks as though they are sending a generic version of the life saving medicine.  It may do the trick but it seems to rely on the Arizona Secretary of State’s knowledge of the history and meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’.  Just as many of America’s young are not being taught the price of freedom that has been paid throughout our history, many of our elected officials may not recognize that a problem of compromised allegiance exists with a particular candidate.

…Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States….

Being just one member of We The People who deeply values Article II, Section 1 and the rest of the family of Constitutional provisions – I’m not a legislative specialist; but wouldn’t it be better if you define the term ‘natural born citizen’. 

Why not require sufficient proof that would meet a definition that the Founders would have understood

A person is a ‘natural born citizen’, if he or she were born a U.S. citizen to parents who were both U.S. citizens by ‘birth or naturalization’ at the time of his or her birth.

Such a definition would only require one U. S. birth certificate indicating birth on American soil for the candidate and a U.S. birth certificate indicating birth on American soil or certification of U.S. Naturalization reflecting U.S. citizenship before the candidate’s birth for each of the candidate’s parents. Simple, it takes three.

If the State law were ever challenged, then maybe, just maybe a federal court would have to define ‘natural born citizen’.

Note:  Even though I have approached this subject using a bit of humor, it is in fact very serious. (Follow the links to find more information about the eligibility issue.)  If you would like to help protect the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, call or email your Representatives, state and national.  I plan on emailing this article to every state legislator in Arizona and Louisiana very soon.  I’m choosing Louisiana because their Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has the same problem with Presidential eligibility that Barack Obama has.

Thank you!

Zach Jones

Dr. Orly Taitz – Judge Carter – Natural Born Citizen – New Jersey Election – Corzine – The BOPAC Report

October 30, 2009

The BOPAC Report:

Natural  Born  Citizen – Obama Birth Certificate Issue –

Camel-Gives-Birth-

Obama's Kenyan Birth Witnessed by His Family

As you know, Judge Carter granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.  However, once again, there is no ruling on the merits and Dr. Orly has plenty of grounds for an appeal.  In addition to the necessary appeal, I would advise Dr. Orly Taitz to follow Judge Carter’s notation concerning the WAY forward. 

“The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.”

From DefendUSx (http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/Prediction-This-is-whats-really-going-to-happen-to-bring-truth-to-the-Obama-eligibility-caseand-it-does-not-matter-where-he-was-born!.aspx)

Prediction: This is what’s really going to happen to bring truth to the Obama eligibility case….and it does not matter where he was born!

by DefendUSx October 30, 2009 00:27

From Blogsphere: 

Obama had declared before the election himself on his website, that he was British born through his father.
I have been following closely this lawyer at Natural Born Citizen, and I believe legally he is right on the money!

[link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com]

Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”

I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today. It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR

The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.

 ChiBama Politics –

 

Martha-Vineyard-Path

No Rules Obama - Not the Constitution, New Jersey Election Rules or bike safety rules.

Don’ t be surprised if an Corzine pulls an upset!

From Atlas Shrugs:

The Democrat Rackeeteering Fix is in: NJ-GOV: Jon Corzine’s Absentee Ballot Slush Fund

Is there one, (one?!) honest Democrat? C’mon NewJersey!

 NJ-GOV: Jon Corzine’s Absentee Ballot Slush Fund NRO via Redstate

National Review’s Jim Geraghty has a tremendously important story. Jon Corzine is trying to build an absentee ballot slush fund to win a recount in the New Jersey Governor’s race. Basically, the Democratic Party has asked the Secretary of State to send provisional absentee ballots out to people whose signatures on their absentee ballot requests don’t match:

In a development that is depressingly predictable, the New Jersey Democratic party is asking the state to provide provisional ballots for all these voters. Those ballots could, presumably, be used to overcome any narrow lead by Republican Chris Christie over Democrat Jon Corzine on Election Day.

Now, let’s be clear how the absentee process works in New Jersey. Third parties can pick up and return absentee ballots.  A couple of weeks ago, a Democratic operative in Atlantic City plead guilty to a lesser charge of tampering with ballots. One practice mentioned in the indictment was the person picking up ballots from people and throwing them out if they weren’t for his candidate.  Another example was:

Continue Reading