You have to read this part of the order of Judge England. He put on paper what he said during the temporary restraining order hearing. They just refuse to use any common sense and point to each other: a judge points to Congress, Congress points to the courts and the criminal with all forged IDs continues to usurp the U.S. Presidency. Noteworthy is that he never stated that Obama has any valid papers
Posted on | January 16, 2013 | 17 Comments
At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that “common-sense” demands the Court interpret the United States Constitution as requiring the President of the United States to have a valid birth certificate, social security number, and selective service certificate. However, in deciding the merits of a case, the Court cannot simply rely on suspicions and what Plaintiffs claim is “common sense.” To be clear, the Court understands that “common sense,” has its place in the political process. However, courts must base their decisions on the Constitution, statutes, rules, and regulations passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. Accordingly, in the present case, the Court must look to the Constitutional requirements
to serve as the President of the United States. Article II provides that the President must be: (1) a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States when the states ratified the Constitution; (2) at least thirty-five years old; and (3) a United States resident for fourteen years. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
4 Article II does not require the President (or a candidate for President) to present his short-form birth certificate, long-form birth certificate, social security card, or any form of identification, to anyone.
Moreover, since 2009, when President Obama was first inaugurated, no laws have been enacted to make proof of “natural born citizen[ship]” a requirement under the law. In short, Plaintiffs have not provided any legal support for their proposition that a presidential candidate must provide a copy of his or her birth certificate or any other documentation to be eligible for office. The Court is not the popularly elected branch of government constitutionally empowered to pass new laws. Because the Court must base its decisions on the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and no law exists that requires the President to present proof of natural born citizenship, the Court cannot require that President Obama present, or even possess, such documentation.
The relevant portion of Article II, Section 1 originally provided: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” U.S. Const. art. II,
§ 1, cl. 5.5ase 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD Document 52 Filed 01/16/13 Page 6 of 13
As such, Plaintiffs cannot show that they have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim. If Plaintiffs want the law to require the President to present such documentation, Plaintiffs must lobby Congress—the branch of government that is constitutionally empowered to pass new laws—and not the Court, to draft and enact a
bill incorporating their desired requirements.Further, Plaintiffs allege that President Obama has committed treason, fraud, and conspiracy to fabricate proof that he is a natural born American citizen. (ECF Nos. 12 and 30.) Again, Plaintiffs’ relief here does not lie in federal courts because the Constitution assigns it to another branch of government. If Plaintiffs believe that President Obama has violated the law, their remedy is to alert Congress to the alleged violation of the law. Congress could then initiate impeachment proceedings with the aid of an independent and special prosecutor. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 5; U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 3, cl. 6; U.S. Const. art. I, § 7.