Tweet
Supreme Court Should Review Our Georgia Eligibility Case
Liberty Legal Foundation
06/08/2012
Excerpt:
"Later this month Liberty Legal Foundation will be filing its petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling that Obama is a natural born citizen. As you know, Liberty Legal Foundation represented David Welden, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia ballot challenges, earlier this year. Our efforts resulted in the first court ruling to reach the merits of an Article II challenge against Obama. All previous courts had dismissed such challenges on procedural grounds.
The Georgia Administrative Court and the Georgia Secretary of State both erroneously ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen because any person born on U.S. soil is, according to them, a natural born citizen. The Georgia Administrative Court was the first court to make such a ruling and have the authority to do so. Of course the ruling was wrong, but that is what we will be arguing to the Supreme Court.
In order to get there, we must show the Supreme Court that we have a case that allows the Court to reach the substantive issue. Please understand what I’m saying here because it is historic and critical to this entire eligibility fight. So, let me say it again: Never before had any court, anywhere in America, had authority to rule on whether Obama is an Article II natural born citizen, and actually made a ruling on the substance of that issue. Every other court had either dismissed on procedural grounds or ruled without authority to do so. This is why this issue has not previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court on the substance of the issue.
Many reading this will point to an Indiana Appellate Court decision from 2009, claiming that the Indiana Court had decided this issue. It is true that the Indiana state court ruled in Arkeny v. Governor that Obama was an Article II natural born citizen. In fact the Georgia Administrative Court relied on Arkeny, claiming that the Indiana Court had decided this issue. However, the Indiana Court’s own opinion admits that it didn’t have jurisdiction. Therefore the Arkeny Court had no authority to decide the Article II issue. The fact that it ruled on the issue, after admitting that it had no authority, simply proves that that court was yet another activist court full of judges willing to reach beyond the authority that we’ve given them.
You see, the Arkeny Court ruled that the plaintiff challenging Obama in Indiana didn’t have standing. When a plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction. Which means that the court has no authority to decide the substantive issue of the case, even if it wants to do so. The Arkeny Court admitted that it lacked standing, and then it ruled on the substantive issue anyway. The judges in that case should be ashamed of themselves. Their ruling reflects either judicial activism at its worst, or inexcusable incompetence.
The reason the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to address the Obama Article II eligibility issue is because every case that has come to them so far reflected a lower court dismissing on procedural grounds, or a court ruling on the Article II issue when it had no authority to do so. In either case, the Supreme Court would not have been able to address the Article II issue, it would be forced to rule on the procedural issues or the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court. That is why Liberty Legal Foundation’s appeal from the Georgia courts is different."
............................................
View the complete post at:
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/20...gibility-case/
Liberty Legal Foundation
06/08/2012
Excerpt:
"Later this month Liberty Legal Foundation will be filing its petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling that Obama is a natural born citizen. As you know, Liberty Legal Foundation represented David Welden, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia ballot challenges, earlier this year. Our efforts resulted in the first court ruling to reach the merits of an Article II challenge against Obama. All previous courts had dismissed such challenges on procedural grounds.
The Georgia Administrative Court and the Georgia Secretary of State both erroneously ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen because any person born on U.S. soil is, according to them, a natural born citizen. The Georgia Administrative Court was the first court to make such a ruling and have the authority to do so. Of course the ruling was wrong, but that is what we will be arguing to the Supreme Court.
In order to get there, we must show the Supreme Court that we have a case that allows the Court to reach the substantive issue. Please understand what I’m saying here because it is historic and critical to this entire eligibility fight. So, let me say it again: Never before had any court, anywhere in America, had authority to rule on whether Obama is an Article II natural born citizen, and actually made a ruling on the substance of that issue. Every other court had either dismissed on procedural grounds or ruled without authority to do so. This is why this issue has not previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court on the substance of the issue.
Many reading this will point to an Indiana Appellate Court decision from 2009, claiming that the Indiana Court had decided this issue. It is true that the Indiana state court ruled in Arkeny v. Governor that Obama was an Article II natural born citizen. In fact the Georgia Administrative Court relied on Arkeny, claiming that the Indiana Court had decided this issue. However, the Indiana Court’s own opinion admits that it didn’t have jurisdiction. Therefore the Arkeny Court had no authority to decide the Article II issue. The fact that it ruled on the issue, after admitting that it had no authority, simply proves that that court was yet another activist court full of judges willing to reach beyond the authority that we’ve given them.
You see, the Arkeny Court ruled that the plaintiff challenging Obama in Indiana didn’t have standing. When a plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction. Which means that the court has no authority to decide the substantive issue of the case, even if it wants to do so. The Arkeny Court admitted that it lacked standing, and then it ruled on the substantive issue anyway. The judges in that case should be ashamed of themselves. Their ruling reflects either judicial activism at its worst, or inexcusable incompetence.
The reason the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to address the Obama Article II eligibility issue is because every case that has come to them so far reflected a lower court dismissing on procedural grounds, or a court ruling on the Article II issue when it had no authority to do so. In either case, the Supreme Court would not have been able to address the Article II issue, it would be forced to rule on the procedural issues or the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court. That is why Liberty Legal Foundation’s appeal from the Georgia courts is different."
............................................
View the complete post at:
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/20...gibility-case/