Just when the White House probably thought those pesky lawsuits seeking a court determination that Barack Obama fails to meet the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for a president were finished, something new has appeared on the horizon.
Or in this case, the docket.
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits in state and federal courts that don’t ask anything about Obama’s birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility. Or his birth certificate, for that matter.
New York Times best-seller, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, which addresses Obama’s Social Security Number and a host of other disputes, is now available for
immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND
Instead, they name the Democrat National Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.
“This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term ‘natural-born citizen’ under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.
“This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court’s definition of ‘natural-born citizen’ as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’”
That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor v. Happersett from 1875.
“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States.”
It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.
“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”
Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, told WND that one lawsuit was filed in federal court in Arizona to focus on the question of defining the term “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution.
“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.
Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.
“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.
Other lawsuits also are planned, he said.
Irion said that an injunction obtained through the legal actions would deprive Obama of Democrat Party certification.
“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement about the cases.
“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” the group said.
“LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government.
“The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages,” the group said.
LLF also reported it learned that presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently LLF partnered with FEC-registered Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.
While WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation that Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012, there also are other developments.
WND also has reported on an investigation that revealed a major online court opinion resource, Justia.com, allegedly edited references to the Minor v. Happersett court decision from dozens on documents it posted online.
The issue developed when a Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of “natural-born citizen” were altered at Justia.com.
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama’s occupancy in the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn’t eligible because he wasn’t born in Hawaii as he’s said, or that he was never qualified because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship (the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the Founders, with their requirement that the president be a “natural-born citizen,” disqualified dual citizens.
The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated it appears to be a forgery.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House