Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed to WND tonight that his clients have requested in writing that he appeal the decision of the California Supreme Court.
Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: “The petition for review is denied.” That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate’s name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.
But Kreep confirmed that his clients, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has refused to even consider the arguments of a multitude of other challenges to Obama’s eligibility, for review.
The lawsuit alleged both California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state’s electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible. After the Electoral College vote was adopted in Congress the lawsuit was adjusted to address future elections.
Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his petition for review, Kreep had explained that if the state Supreme Court failed to act, it would be tantamount to abandoning the clear requirements of the U.S. Constitution because a political party could nominate a candidate in violation of the Constitution, and voters might not either know or care about the result.
A commentary at Ballot-Access.org reported that the state’s highest court, by leaving the appellate decision alone, revealed that the state apparently violated its own law in 1968 when then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan removed candidate Eldridge Cleaver of the Peace & Freedom Party from the presidential ballot.
He was only 33 years old at the time, while the Constitution requires a president to be 35.
“The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver,” said the commentary.
The decision that state Supreme Court refused to alter was one that concluded, “Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot. … With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.”
Plaintiffs had argued that the 1968 case set a precedent for the state to look at the qualifications of candidates and remove them from the ballot should they fail in the constitutional requirements to be a resident for 14 years, to be 35 years old, and a “natural born citizen.”
It is Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” that is being questioned. WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, and at least 10 state legislatures this year are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal had been introduced in the last Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of his birth.
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.”
The Certification of Live Birth posted online by the Obama campaign is a document Hawaii officials have made available to those not born in the state.
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama’s birth could be obtained.
Besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The president’s lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don’t have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution’s provision that presidential eligibility issues must be handled by Congress during the approval of the Electoral College vote, or a president must be removed by impeachment, which also rests with Congress.
In one case, the president’s lawyers prominently argued, “The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
“The examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress,” the president’s lawyers argued.
But it was in “State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,” after Thomas H. Moodie was elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, according to court filings, “it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor.”
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.
The original Obama case sought to prevent Bowen from certifying California’s electors for the Electoral College vote; it later was amended to correct the deficiencies it identified in future elections.