A longstanding eligibility case challenging Barack Obama’s presence in the White House soon could be headed to the state Supreme Court in Alabama, where one justice already in a court filing has questioned the authenticity of Obama’s documentation, and the incoming chief justice is a dyed-in-the-wool Constitution supporter with little tolerance for those who want to bypass the document.
The move is pending in an eligibility challenge brought by Hugh McInnish and others against the Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman.
The case most recently was turned down by a state district judge, Eugene Reese, who got his opinion into the mix by determining that the case was “ordered, adjudged and decreed” to be dismissed.
The case calls for a determination that Chapman “has a duty to verify the eligibility of those seeking office.”
In a recent brief in the case, attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now of the Klayman Law Firm in Washington, noted that while the state is arguing it should not be tasked with making sure candidates are eligible, the submission by the state itself suggests otherwise.
“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court … Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should not’ certify the candidate.”
The issue is the conflict over the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which demands, “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…”
While Obama’s campaign first released a representation of a short-form birth document from Hawaii, and the White House later officially posted online a representation of a long-form certificate, the authenticity of both of those documents has been questioned.
A special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio concluded that the long-form document was a fabricated image built on a computer.
At last word, it was investigating the possibility of forgery and fraud charges.
“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent,” Klayman argued.
For one thing, a publisher promoting Obama as an author for years promoted in a biography of Obama that he was a native Kenyan.
“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr. Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary,” the plaintiffs argued.
The brief said even though the dispute is a “hot potato,” “the rule of law must eventually govern, without regard to politics, and cannot and should not be sidestepped through legally convenient and politically correct court rulings which ignore the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.”
But many court cases have made such arguments, and have prompted dismissals by “hot potato”-wary judges.
This one, should it appear before the state Supreme Court as Klayman plans, would be before a panel where one judge at an earlier step in the case already has raised doubts about Obama’s authenticity.
It was when the majority of the high court denied a petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot this year, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
Parker wrote, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
The “certain documentation” Parker refers to is the findings of an investigation conducted by Arpaio.
As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.
In his concurrence, Parker describes McInnish’s petition as follows: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.'”
Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents, but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.
“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court.
Also, the newly elected chief justice for the court, Judge Roy Moore, recently told WND in an interview that the country must return to a standard where the rule of law, the Constitution, prevails over politics.
Moore, many will remember, was the judge who was removed from the same position he’s now assuming 10 years ago for refusing a federal court’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building in Alabama.
He’s explained repeatedly that he has no plans to bring that back, because the monument became a distraction from the real issue: the acknowledgement of God as explained in the national and state constitutions. And he says there’s no possibility of true justice without that.
He said he will be sworn in on the promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as the Alabama Constitution.
“The only way you can do that is acknowledge that morality and law does come from God,” he said.
It’s not really that complicated, he noted. Human beings unrestrained by law misbehave, so the Constitution is set up with the goal of restraining human excesses, specifically in government.
“The whole basis of the Constitution is the restraint of human power,” he said.
He cited the state of the United States now, following the 2012 election, as an example of things gone wrong.
“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” he said. “[The members of the legislature] don’t and neither does the Supreme Court.”
Yet, he said, Barack Obama has violated its standard by bombing Libya, when the Constitution provides only Congress shall declare war.
“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold is to uphold the rule of law,” he said.
“I get criticized for my professions that God is the basis of all rights or liberties,” he told WND, “and yet, the rule of law, being the Constitution, and its companion, the Declaration of Independence, organize the laws of our country on [the premise that] our rights come from God.”
Government’s job, he said, is to secure and protect those rights.
Further, the full Constitution needs to play an active role today, he said.
“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
“You go back and you read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to William Giles, of 1825,” he said. “Read what he said about the usurpation of the rights of states. It sounds like he was speaking today.”
In that 1825 letter, which is online at Constitution.org, Jefferson writes that he is concerned that the federal government is becoming too powerful.
“I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the states, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power,” he wrote. “Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the president, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the state authorities; of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”
He noted the misbehavior at that time – a taxation plan for roads – was being pursued under the color of the government’s power to regulate commerce, the same precedent cited for the imposition of Obamacare today.
“They assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all,” Jefferson wrote. “Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.”
And think Congress today is in conflict? Jefferson said of the state of Washington then: “And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance.”
He said patience is needed, and the nation should “keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”