A lot of court cases have been filed alleging that Barack Obama never qualified to become president, and therefore is occupying the Oval Office as a matter of fact, but not of law. Now there’s a new case that argues since Obama is not legally president, his Obamacare takeover of the nation’s health-care industry should be voided.
“It is indisputable and not denied that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth,” says the lawsuit, now pending before a federal judge who is awaiting word from the Justice Department on how its lawyers want to defend against the claims.
“By law, it is undeniable Mr. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States. The framers of the Constitution when they adopted the requirement they excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born,” the lawsuit says.
“Mr. Obama was born of a father who is a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same. The term ‘natural born citizen’ is defined, at least since 1758, as ‘a child born in the country of parents who are citizens.’ Only one of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s parents was a citizen at the time of his birth; in this case his mother … was/is a U.S. citizen.”
The focal point of the lawsuit brought by former financial company executive Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr., acting as their own attorneys, is a request to invalidate Obamacare.
Their complaint cites more than a dozen reasons why the act is illegal, and has been causing a stir in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where, according to the plaintiffs, the government has missed several filing deadlines and a judge has expanded the definition of court procedure in order to prevent a default judgment against the government in the case.
According to Terry Hurlbut of the Examiner, who has been writing about the progress of the case ever since its filing a few months back, the latest move is a pre-emptive defense filed by the plaintiffs in expectation that the government will ask for the case to be dismissed.
The case cites 16 alleged violations of the Constitution, or the nation’s law, including multiple sections of Article I, Article 2, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 13, 14 and 16, and violations of a long list of other laws.
“The material facts herein demonstrate the Healthcare Reform Act not only illegally and unconstitutionally expands government, in an attempt by a majority party to take control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, but an intentional fraudulent scheme was concocted by those in the legislature to intentionally circumvent the Constitution and Amendments,” the case states.
According to Hurlbut, the latest filing was over the weekend, when the plaintiffs reminded Judge Freda L. Wolfson that a dismissal of the case was appropriate “only if all the specific facts which plaintiff … alleges collectively fail to state a prima facie case for jurisdiction.”
Purpura told WND that the defense was filed even before the expected government motion to dismiss because the judge scheduled the government’s brief to be due Jan. 17, on Martin Luther King Day, a federal holiday, and she’s scheduled to announce her decision the next day, allowing no time for the plaintiffs to respond.
The case has attracted some of the same attorneys for the government who also are defending Obamacare in lawsuits brought by the state of Virginia, a series of plaintiffs in Michigan and a long list of states cooperating on a lawsuit in Florida. In those cases, two judges have concluded that Obamacare is constitutional and another has said it is not. All are heading to the appellate level.
Hurlbut told WND that the case has advanced to this point even though the federal government, which declined to respond to a WND request for comment, has not responded to any of the deadlines that ordinarily would apply in a lawsuit so far.
“The case is hanging right now because you’ve got defendants who have never filed a responsive pleading in this matter,” he said.
A timeline he’s assembled reveals the case was filed in September, and the next month the plaintiffs requested a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to stop enforcement of Obamacare.
The judge ignored their request, but when attorney Ethan P. Davis asked the judge on behalf of the government to deny the TRO request, it was granted in hours.
Now the plaintiffs are seeking a summary judgment, essentially a judge’s statement saying they win, because “the Justice Department filed no pleadings, responsive or otherwise, no motions, and indeed no letters until well into December,” he reported.
Purpura told WND he wants to get rid of Obamacare because, “the health care bill has nothing to do with health care. This is about control of the people.”
“This is insanity,” he said.
Among the claims it makes is the one about an ineligible president. It cites the Constitution’s requirement, Article 2, Section 1, that says “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….”
“Plaintiffs are not arguing whether Mr. Obama was or was not born in Hawaii, though it is incumbent for this honorable court to also address that question,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The question that mandates an answer, why is Mr. Obama above the law, when by law you need a birth certificate to obtain a driver’s license, Social Security card and/or passports,” the pleading said.
“There are other questions that demand answers: why does Mr. Obama have scores of Social Security numbers, and those numbers it has been discovered were issued by the state of Connecticut. If a fraud was perpetrated upon the American people it is a crime. Regardless, based upon the Constitution and the British citizenship of Mr. Obama’s father, he, Mr. Barack Obama Jr., is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the president.
“Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief, Mr. Obama is currently acting without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs injury in fact,” it said.
In support, it offered an 1875 Supreme Court decision that explained natural born citizens are accepted to be those “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”
Also cited were 1814 and 1939 cases.
“Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a British citizen and gave his son British citizenship, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., does not meet the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement of Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the contract represented by the U.S. Constitution nor was he … alive and a citizen of the United States of America at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is a native born or statutory citizen and is therefore ineligible to exercise the authority of the office of president of the United States and cannot sign bills into law,” the case states.
The case argues Obamacare also violates the Constitution because the bill started in the Senate and raises revenue, violates the “posse Comitatus” Act, violates medical privacy legislation, violates due process, discriminates based on religion, violates antitrust laws, violates the 10th Amendment and violates equal protection and treatment.
It alleges those who voted for the plan “are guilty of dereliction of duty, which constitutes a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ which are impeachable offenses.”
The case is just the latest on the situation, which appears to not be going away.
- More than a year ago, polls revealed that a bare half of the people in the United States even knew there was an issue over Obama’s eligibility but recent polls have indicated up to 58 percent of Americans now have doubts over that issue.
- Fining attorneys, even jailing defendants, as happened in the recent case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin at Ft. Meade, Md., hasn’t caused the issue to disappear.
- A billboard campaign that simply asks “Where’s the Birth Certificate” has appeared in many dozens of locations, and one billboard company that a year ago concluded it was more or less a settled issue now has asked to be allowed to participate in the campaign.
- Various officials have “verified” Obama’s eligibility but have declined to document their statements.
- Extensive examinations of the available record suggest Obama likely is, in fact, ineligible.
- There remains a multitude of lawsuits still making their way toward Supreme Court review. One case was rejected just days ago and another is scheduled to be heard in the next few days.
- In Congress, a proposal would have required all candidates for the office of president to document their eligibility under the Constitution’s requirement that they be a “natural born citizen.”
- Similar plans are moving even more quickly at the state legislature level.
- And there even are predictions that Congress will take up the dispute.
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.
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 Orly Taitz.