- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
More military officers demand eligibility proof
Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/02/2009 @ 8:18 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled
Military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are working with California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, citing a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.
Taitz told WND today she has mailed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder a request that he “relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court.”
The lengthy legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
Requesting the action are Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer and Selected Reservist Navy Commander Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely and others.
“As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3,” the document said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore after he was removed from office for formally recognizing the Ten Commandments’ influence in the U.S., said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
“She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’
“She probably has some very good arguments to make,” Eidsmoe said.
The letter, dispatched to Holder today, is the latest development in the quest by a multitude of lawyers and plaintiffs nationwide for documentation that Obama qualifies to be president under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.
Taitz’ plaintiffs, some of whom potentially face life-or-death situations in defense of the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis, note that information on Quo Warranto against a federal officer normally is related to the attorney general. But since Holder is an Obama friend and appointee, they are asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor to help in presenting documentation to the Supreme Court.
“This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii’s privacy laws. Hawaii’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Elect Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art. II § 1, and amend. XX § 3,” the document said.
Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, “he does not want the public to know.”
What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked. A separate lawsuit has sought the documents to find out whether they indicate Obama, possibly under the name Barry Soetero, attended the college on aid for foreign students.
Obama’s critics warn of the impending constitutional crisis should it be discovered Obama is ineligible and the resulting chaos of trying to figure out what, if any, of his executive branch orders, should be valid.
According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
Taitz told WND the “relators” include members of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Army and feature recipients of some of the highest honors the nation awards, including the Purple Heart.
One is Harry Riley, a veteran military officer who spent part of his career in the Pentagon. Riley said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow “the trashing” of their Constitution.
“Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution. The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis, in my judgment. How can an individual become the commander-in-chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?” he asked.
“The whole idea is that America cannot allow an individual to serve as president who isn’t qualified. It destroys our Constitution. It’s the bedrock of our nation,” he said.
“In the worst case, in the long run, if he continues [to fight revealing his documentation,] it’s going to be revolution in the streets,” he warned.
“It’s simply a matter of producing a $12 birth certificate,” Riley said.
“It’s just mindboggling to think an individual who’s been sworn in as the president of the United States would be so small and be such a hypocrite who would be unwilling to simply show a birth certificate,” Riley said.
Taitz told WND she has assembled a list of about 100 names of people – so far – who are willing to be plaintiffs in such a demand.
Childers told WND he’d be perfectly happy if Obama is legitimate, but the truth still matters.
“I personally admire many things about him,” he said. “But if he’s not legitimate, if he’s allowed to violate the Constitution, what else are they going to violate? Take my guns, and my television, telephone? What’s the limit?”
Taitz told WND she’s asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor, such as the role Archibald Cox played in investigating Watergate.
According to author Chester Antieau in his “The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies,” Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
“The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198,” he wrote. “The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the ‘relation’ of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England.”
Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, “Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. …”
Its first recognized purpose, he said, is “to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers.”
Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.
As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called “evidence” of Obama’s constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.
As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, “The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama’s birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn’t the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
“That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document,” Corsi writes, “leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama.”
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions, the biggest being why, if there exists documentation of Obama’s eligibility, hasn’t it been released to quell the rumors.
Instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.
If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/90574/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.