California attorney Orly Taitz says the changing political environment has made it much more likely that, for the first time, a U.S. court will rule on the merits of an Obama eligibility case.
“Now the environment is more favorable for judges to decide on the merits without fear,” said Taitz, a leader in the legal battle to force President Obama to prove his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Taitz recently presented the U.S. Supreme Court with a petition for a writ of certiorari in her case, Orly Taitz v. Thomas D. MacDonald, et al. A writ of certiorari means the court agrees to review the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court is scheduled to reply to the new filing and announce whether it will hear the case on Nov. 24.
Taitz v. MacDonald is now the second case challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve in the Oval Office up for review by the Supreme Court.
“We have had a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and a Democratic administration, so the courts have been hesitant to do anything,” Taitz told WND.
“Today things are changing,” Taitz continued. “Republicans are projected to take the House of Representatives with big margins, and Obama’s approval ratings are way down, so the justices might feel less intimidated to rule on the merits of the case.”
Taitz v. MacDonald was originally brought on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama’s signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be.
A “natural born citizen” was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.
But Taitz v. MacDonald goes beyond Obama’s legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud.
“Legitimacy is a theoretical question,” said Taitz. “This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted.”
Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that the Social Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.
“It cannot have been legally obtained,” said Taitz.
Her brief asserts that Obama’s Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.
According to Taitz, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the merits of Taitz v. MacDonald is increased because she personally has legal standing to bring the case. Taitz was fined $20,000 by 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clay D. Land in connection with the case, and she’s appealing the fine, which she contends violated her civil rights.
Taitz v. MacDonald follows on the heels of Kerchner v. Obama, a case also arguing that Obama has failed to prove he is a “natural born citizen.” The court is scheduled to announce its decision whether to hear Kerchner v. Obama on Nov. 3.
As WND has reported, Kerchner v. Obama attorney Mario Apuzzo warns the Supreme Court that if the judiciary fails to enforce the Constitution’s requirements for the president, effectively the court would be ceding to political interests the right to amend the Constitution at will.