- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Obama eligibility lawyer cites dangers from delays
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/19/2009 @ 8:18 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled
An attorney handling one of the many lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is urging a court to deny a demand from a lawyer for the president for still more time to answer simple questions such as whether Obama was born in Hawaii, citing the dangers of having an president many identify as a “usurper” in office.
“Whether or not the president of the United States is eligible for the office he currently occupies is of utmost national important,” wrote attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey in a motion opposing Obama’s request for more time.
“Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action, that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans,” he continued.
“It can be argued that Mr. Obama is currently the most powerful human being on the planet. He could conceivably end all life on earth in a single day. Every executive action that Mr. Obama takes impacts not only the plaintiffs but also every other American,” he said in the legal document submitted in the court case yesterday.
Apuzzo filed his lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
The action names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
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 370,000 others and sign up now!
Apuzzo told WND that while it may be good strategy on the part of a defense lawyer for Obama to delay answering such questions as long as possible, the American people also are impacted by the case every day in which there is not a resolution.
He outlines in the document that while ordinary court rules require answers to such lawsuits within 60 days, in this case the actions of the defense lawyer probably will generate a delay of 124 days – or more – for Obama’s answers.
Apuzzo told WND the first issue is simple: Was Obama born in Hawaii as he has said? The second question seeking a definition of “natural born” citizen is more complicated.
WND reported earlier on the request submitted by Ralph Marra Jr., the acting U.S. attorney, and Elizabeth Pascal, the assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, that explains that the Department of Justice, operating under Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, still is working on a decision on representation for the defendants.
“The failure to file an answer, move, or to otherwise respond before the expiration of the time specified is not the result of any neglect on any of the Defendants’ parts,” the court filing said.
“Representation decisions are made by a specialized group of individuals in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. In order to provide a fair opportunity for the Department to review this matter and to complete the representation determinations, Defendants respectfully request an extension of twenty (20) days from the date of this Order in which to answer, move, or otherwise respond,” the court filing said.
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.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.
Apuzzo, on his website, says the issue “is of utmost national importance.”
It is not the first case challenging Obama’s eligibility that has run into a stone wall in the court system. A similar situation developed in a California case raising a challenge to Obama’s eligibility that was filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes. The complaint was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation in early November, but it didn’t get court action until March, months after the actual election that it challenged.
That case now is on appeal.
The case being handled by Apuzzo focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution.
That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
It provides, the lawsuit said, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”
“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,” the case explains.
“Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them,” the lawsuit said.
The defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,” the lawsuit said.
A state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, said, “I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a foreign birth in Hawaii?
Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.
While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations “garbage,” the president and his team have withheld other comments. But 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:
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/98643/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.