Appeals court tosses Obama birthplace challenge

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Quigley_Sharps, Dec 23, 2011.

  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama's political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel.
    The birther movement has filed multiple lawsuits over the issue, so far with no success. Its leaders have lost similar challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.
    The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than the U.S. state of Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.
    The appeals court didn't address the authenticity of the birth certificate, instead ruling that the challengers couldn't show "concrete injury" from the allegations.
    The taxpayers listed in the lawsuit, for instance, failed to show how the citizenship question affected any federal taxing and spending provisions.
    The lawsuit was filed in 2009 by 40 plaintiffs, including conservative activists Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, who ran for president and vice president respectively as members of the American Independent Party against Obama in 2008.
    They alleged they had standing to file a lawsuit because of their interest in competing in a fair election. Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot was also a plaintiff.
    Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the three-judge panel, said Keyes and Drake waited too long to file their lawsuit. The election was over and Obama was already sworn in when the lawsuit was filed.
    "Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election," Pregerson wrote. "Plaintiffs' competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed."
    Orly Taitz, one of the challengers' lawyers, said she would ask the appeals court to convene a special 11-judge panel to reconsider the case. If she's turned down there, she said she would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
    Taitz said she has filed similar lawsuits in five states and has two other federal appeals pending in Washington, D.C.
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    No concrete harm? Well, other than treading on the Constitution, I suppose not.
  3. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    The only "concrete" the 9th Circus considers, is that between THEIR ears..... Been that way for MANY Years.... The most overturned Federal Appeals Court, in the USA....
    Seawolf1090, Sapper John and Cephus like this.
  4. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    That the Constitution may have been injured is arguable

    However the Constitution is not a corporation nor person who has
    standing as a plaintiff, and can't initiate of itself a lawsuit to obtain relief from said injury or seek damages in a court of law. But that's just me doing some bush lawyering....those who feel that " we wuz robbed" won't stop until they evict from office by fair means or foul, someone they can't abide by.

    Somehow these same offended people weren't so sanguine in remedying the alleged electoral shennanigans in Florida that eggregiously favoured the previous presidential incumbent.
  5. capt45

    capt45 Monkey+

    I'll admit that I didn't pay much attention to the story an Illinois election (being in Texas) at the time, but I did perk my ears up at what seemed to be a story of a Kenyan born man being elected to the Senate from Illinois. I remember raising eyebrows and that his name was vaguely exotic. And yes, it was Obama. I do recall his election was touted as a victory for inclusiveness, etc. Whatever.

    The best account of his improbable rise was chronicled in the June 23, 2008 issue of "The New Yorker" - the one with the cover featuring cartoon Barack and Michelle as Muslim/Angela Davis radical chic. That cover got all kinds of flack, but the story was incredibly enlightening and not very reassuring.

    There have been a couple of other elections where the "heir apparent" for a party nomination came away empty handed: 1860 where New York governor Wiliam Seward was sure he would receive the Republican party's nomination and was humiliated when Lincoln received the nod.

    More recently, LBJ was expecting the Democratic nomination in 1960 and was equally humiliated when JFK was chosen.

    I bring this up because we know Hilary believed she had paid her dues and would be anointed as the Democrats' champion. And it would seem there are balloons being floated to see if she has a strong enough base of support to challenge Obama next summer.

    So as I look back over all of this and put it with what I know of progressive/communist activism, I'm guessing Obama was groomed early on (during and after his Occidental College years) as a sort of "closer" for their agenda. That he's met with more resistance than I'm sure they planned for is due in no small part to the Internet and the opposition's ability to organize and get the word out.

    The next six months are going to be interesting...[freedom]
  6. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

  7. Espada

    Espada Monkey+

    Why would it be "nice?"

    The Constitution, Article II, Section I, plainly states that only a "natural born citizen. as defined by a work previous to the writing of said document, "Law Of Nations," can become president of the United States. This was explained as being necessary so that future presidents would have to be born here, of American citizens, and who would thus presumably have been brought up to think like an American and like America.

    Neither of which concepts apply to the illegal alien whose sealed records so far, thanks to complicit/cowardly judges, has so far been allowed to tear America apart.

    The dismissive Australian comment just goes to show that such sleazy concepts, while apparently okay in Australia, don't fly with Americans. We ARE different.

    If just one, JUST ONE, decent judge would allow Americans to have standing, the right to sue for the truth (and which American here doesn't have the right to seek truth through the courts?) (all of us, apparently) the court case would be over quickly, during the early process of discovery, which would force the POS in the White House to either disclose to the court, and to the world, pertinent documents, or plead guilty to the charges.

    But as said before, the manifold judges who have been in charge of the respective manifold cases brought up, have been either intimidated into lying about "standing," the right to bring suit, or they have been Democrats, who cheerfully lie about "standing" with a smirk on their faces.
  8. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    It would be nice because half the battle would already be won. Why bother suing for the truth when he should and could be impeached for the campaign finance crap? You want to win the war you pick the battle that can and will lead to a decisive victory, you don't waste the efforts on something like this. Personally I don't want him impeached because his replacement is far more deranged and dangerous than he is. The only good that can come of him being impeached is that he can't get the second term and Biden couldn't win it no matter how much money was thrown in to it.

    Take a look at the overall war, don't get tunnel vision for one battle.
  9. Espada

    Espada Monkey+

    Okay, he should be impeached for lots of things... which one is working ?

    Impeachment is not automatic removal from office plus deportation or jail... ask Slick Willie - he told us all to shove it and continued about his business.

    Fraud in the attainment of the presidency should put the bastard away for the rest of his life.
  10. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    I'm not disagreeing. Just saying the campaign finance fraud seems it would be the easier means to the ends.
  11. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Retired Curmudgeonly IT Monkey Founding Member

    No Federal Court will give us justice on this issue - they all work for the Enemy. They are 'Made Men', kowtowing to The Capo Di Tutti Capi in DC.
    Any Federal Investigation must be made thru the Justice Department - guess who runs that agency....?

    Best we can hope for is to oust the illegal kenyan by way of election....... IF we can overcome his foreign Billion Dollar War Chest, and the Drive-by Media's broad ranging hype and outright lies.

    Chell, the crap we Floridians get flushed onto us is just that - total BS. THREE counties, very heavily DEMOCRAT - had the problems with the then-new voting machines.
    After the election, the ballots recounted many times - each time, instead of going intto the Dems favor, it climbed in favor of Bush. The people SPOKE - the right man won, get over it.

    Nobody seems bothered by the kenyan's supporters and henchmen who committed voter fraud all over this nation, the voter intimidation by ACORN agents, the multitudinous votes recorded from DEAD people, the same names being used in widely different precincts, etc ad infinitum. It seems when the crimes favor the kenyan, they are swept under the carpet - out of sight, out of mind. Having the Media totally in one's hip pocket sure comes in handy.......
    Sapper John likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary