 |
|
Legal Services
Other Services
|
|
 |
|
|
"BIRTHER LAWSUIT" THROWN OUT
Monday, November 02, 2009
|
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter this morning dismissed Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s lawsuit which alleged that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen and so is not the country’s legitimate president.
Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional powers to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.
“Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders,” Carter wrote in his ruling.
Carter also sharply criticized the conduct of attorney Taitz, calling her actions unethical and possibly illegal.
Taitz said that she would appeal the case. She dismissed Carter’s criticism of her behavior and said she suspects Carter’s ruling was the the result of pressure from the Obama Administration.
“Clearly there was pressure on Judge Carter,” said Taitz, who made a similar claim about a federal judge in Georgia, Clay Land, after he threw out a similar Taitz suit on Sept. 16.
Taitz argued that Obama was born in Kenya or possibly Indonesia - and that even if he was born in the U.S., he’s not a natural-born citizen because his father was Kenyan, or possibly because he abandoned his citizenship by moving to Indonesia.
Legal experts have generally considered natural-born citizens to be anyone who was born in the U.S., regardless of parents’ citizenship - but a specific definition is not given in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter.
Carter never got to the substance of this definition either, examining instead the federal courts’ powers under the U.S. Constitution to remove a sitting president and dismissing the case without going to trial.
“In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless,” Carter wrote.
“(I)n order to cure Plaintiffs’ perceived injury, the Court would need to wade deep into the waters of the President’s official duties–in fact, it would have to declare that the President could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave.”
After an extensive examination of the constitutional issues, Carter concluded:
“(O)n the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. ”
Carter also had harsh words for attorney Taitz.
“Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
Taitz denied both that she’d asked witnesses to perjure themselves and that she’d asked supporters to call Carter.
“That’s absolutely not true,” she said. “That’s outrageous. It’s defamation of character. That is complete garbage. I see from Land and Carter an attempt to assassinate my character.”
And finally, Carter, a former First Lieutenant in the U.S. Marines and recipient of a Bronze Star and Purple Heart for his combat service in Vietnam, appeared to take umbrage at the plaintiffs’ suggestion that he and federal judges who have dismissed similar lawsuits are unpatriotic.
“Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction.
“Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”
|
| source: http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/29/oc-lawsuit-challenging-obama-birthplace-dismissed/24173/ |
|
|
|
|
|
