By Ted Belman
On May 2/11 the C of A heard the appeal against the denial by the lower court of the standing of the Plaintiffs to ask whether Obama was eligible.
This article discusses what exchanges took place on the appeal. Even allowing for the fact that the author may have wanted the appeal to be granted, he describes some of the facts and the arguments presented in a fair way.
The article serves a useful purpose in ellucidating what is at stake on the issue of standing. Although he has a positive take on what transpired, I couldn’t escape the feeling that this court would try their utmost to deny the appeal.
The Court has yet to rule (I’d be surprised it it grants the appeal).
I notice the involvement of the fringe American Independent Party in this lawsuit. From what I can tell by looking at Wikipedia, this organization might trace its history back to the far right American Independent Party of George Wallace and the American Party of john Scnhmitz. I used to monitor some of these organizations for a mainstream Jewish organization. The American Party was filled with the far-right loons that responsible conservatives did and should shun. I was at their 1975 or ’76 convention where they nominated Tom Anderson, a Tennessee Bircher.
I wouldn’t mind it if they are successful in attacking Obama’s eligibility, but I think it’s a waste of time in that it’s futile and a distraction. It distracts from the main problems with our country and this president and tends to discredit the conservative side with the all-important independents who are essential to booting Obama in 2012.
This article from the Examiner is basically incoherent and should be disregarded. It describes the court as the “federal district court of appeals.” What??? There’s no such thing. Apparently, this is a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal court, sitting in Pasadena. The panels of the Circuit sit in a number of different cities throughout the western states comprising the 9th Circuit, including California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Montana, I guess among others.
This very incoherent article seems to suggest that this is just a jurisdictional hearing after the District Court apparently threw it our because the district court (a trial court, not an appellate court) felt it did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
This is hardly newsworthy. Most likely the 9th Circuit will go through the motions and somehow find a way to affirm the district court’s finding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. A shame if it does, I’d like to see such a suit go forward, but I don’t think any court really wants to touch this issue. This poorly written article in the Examiner adds little to the understanding.
Bland, First correction: I’m a proud native born and raised American Citizen.
Next correction: most bars get to see drivers licenses, not birth certificates, to ascertain age. This is true of bars in Hawaii, NY, Israel , Europe and perhaps even in Russia. When was the last time you walked around with your birth certificate folded in your wallet?
Next correction: the recently issued BC is a direct digital portrayal of the original paper document on file in Hawaii, as is certified by the State Registrar.
Final correction: Hawaii DOH: Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II
I’ve been botted, and my post wasn’t too long. Neither did I swear, or use the name Jesus or God, or anything. What the hell gives?
Shy,
I didn’t say Obo doesn’t meet ANY requirements. I said the American people have a right to know if their elected official are abiding by those requirements, and all Hawaii and the judges have done so far, is try to thwart the people of this country. Hawaii is NOT required to hide birth certificates to keep them from being used for legitimate purposes. If that were so, then bars would have to take teenagers on their word that they were old enough to drink. Which is more important? That a state allow a 17-year-old to have a beer? or that a foreigner should be President of the United States? If you can’t figure that one out, don’t fret — You’re not an American, and I don’t expect you to understand such things.
Bland, which Constitutional requirement does Obo not meet?
How has Hawaii been “obstructionist” other than abiding by existing on-the-books governing laws related to release of such records?
I don’t see that any of the judges who’ve heard these matters has any concern for the law. The Constitution states the requirements for the President of the US, and several people have sought, in vain, to find out if Obama meets those requirements. The State of Hawaii has been especially obstructionist. This is simply foul play, on a grand scale. I am ashamed of so-called Americans, who have let such an important matter slide.
Ted, can you spot the junk in Mr. Berg’s claims, about 2/3 of the way down the article? You should be able to by now.