Tweet
Would Schwarzenegger be eligible for Oval Office?
Appeal of long-running Obama case advances to Supreme Court
WND
Bob Unruh
4/12/2012
Excerpt:
"A long-running court case that originated when Barack Obama assumed the powers of the presidency is being forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a request that the justices finally take action on the dispute – or else “there remains a question as to whether absurd results may occur.”
The request for review comes from Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, whose challenge says without a determination by the Supreme Court, “Arnold Schwarzenegger is well known as having been born in Austria. If there are no means of compelling verification of a presidential candidate’s birth status, Mr. Schwarzenegger could run for, and be elected, president. … If the Libertarian Party were to nominate the late Ayn Rand as their candidate for president, could she be removed from the ballot on the grounds that she is not a natural born citizen of the United States?”
The petition was filed on behalf of Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, candidates on the 2008 ballot for president and vice president, and Markham Robinson, an elector for the state of California in 2008.
There originally were several dozen plaintiffs, and they were represented by Kreep as well as Orly Taitz, another California attorney who has handled a number of eligibility challenges to Obama.
Various trips to district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have resulted in the named plaintiffs pursuing the petition with Kreep.
As candidates during 2008, Keyes and Drake “had an interest in having a fair competition for those positions. This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed.”
The case explains that in such cases, “all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed if that disqualified contestant remains, as the contestants would not be competing on a level playing field.”
“Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of president of the United States, and, as a result, Keyes and Drake have been injured, because they did not have fair competition for the office.”
To the government argument that third-party candidates really aren’t hurt because they couldn’t win anyway, Kreep wrote: “Does the law, therefore, provide opportunities for, and encourage, majority party presidential candidates to skirt, or ignore, election rules and laws, since, according to respondents, third party presidential challenges would never have standing to challenge?
“Such a result would never be acceptable in the jurisprudence of this court,” he wrote.
And, Kreep noted, third-party candidates have included H. Ross Perot and George Wallace, who had an impact on the general election.
“The injury suffered here … is the denial of the right of all candidates to have a level playing field … this simply means that all candidates running for the office must be eligible for the office,” the appeal said.
“The injury here is not that some candidates … were prevented from winning … but that these candidates were denied a fair opportunity to run for the office, because their competition was disqualified from the outset.
“Whether a candidate can win a race for an office is irrelevant to the question of whether the election is fair.”
.................................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/would-sch..._orig=politics
Appeal of long-running Obama case advances to Supreme Court
WND
Bob Unruh
4/12/2012
Excerpt:
"A long-running court case that originated when Barack Obama assumed the powers of the presidency is being forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a request that the justices finally take action on the dispute – or else “there remains a question as to whether absurd results may occur.”
The request for review comes from Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, whose challenge says without a determination by the Supreme Court, “Arnold Schwarzenegger is well known as having been born in Austria. If there are no means of compelling verification of a presidential candidate’s birth status, Mr. Schwarzenegger could run for, and be elected, president. … If the Libertarian Party were to nominate the late Ayn Rand as their candidate for president, could she be removed from the ballot on the grounds that she is not a natural born citizen of the United States?”
The petition was filed on behalf of Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake, candidates on the 2008 ballot for president and vice president, and Markham Robinson, an elector for the state of California in 2008.
There originally were several dozen plaintiffs, and they were represented by Kreep as well as Orly Taitz, another California attorney who has handled a number of eligibility challenges to Obama.
Various trips to district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have resulted in the named plaintiffs pursuing the petition with Kreep.
As candidates during 2008, Keyes and Drake “had an interest in having a fair competition for those positions. This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed.”
The case explains that in such cases, “all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed if that disqualified contestant remains, as the contestants would not be competing on a level playing field.”
“Obama entered this race without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of president of the United States, and, as a result, Keyes and Drake have been injured, because they did not have fair competition for the office.”
To the government argument that third-party candidates really aren’t hurt because they couldn’t win anyway, Kreep wrote: “Does the law, therefore, provide opportunities for, and encourage, majority party presidential candidates to skirt, or ignore, election rules and laws, since, according to respondents, third party presidential challenges would never have standing to challenge?
“Such a result would never be acceptable in the jurisprudence of this court,” he wrote.
And, Kreep noted, third-party candidates have included H. Ross Perot and George Wallace, who had an impact on the general election.
“The injury suffered here … is the denial of the right of all candidates to have a level playing field … this simply means that all candidates running for the office must be eligible for the office,” the appeal said.
“The injury here is not that some candidates … were prevented from winning … but that these candidates were denied a fair opportunity to run for the office, because their competition was disqualified from the outset.
“Whether a candidate can win a race for an office is irrelevant to the question of whether the election is fair.”
.................................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/would-sch..._orig=politics