9th Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Presidential Eligibility Case

On Monday, May 2, the 9th circuit heard arguments in Drake v Obama, 09-56827, in Pasadena, California. C-SPAN carried the hearing, which lasted 51 minutes. This case was filed in U.S. District Court on January 20, 2009, and argues that President Obama (who had been sworn in that day) does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president. The plaintiffs are the American Independent Party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees from 2008, Alan Keyes for president and Rev. Wiley Drake for vice-president.

All other lawsuits over presidential eligibility filed in the last three years were filed by people who were held to lack standing. There is some case law to support the idea that candidates running against Obama do have standing. However, it appears that the panel will find that Keyes and Drake should have filed their lawsuit early in 2008 in order to have standing, and that because they didn’t file until after the election is over, they were no longer candidates at that point and also lack standing. The three judges are Harry Pregerson, Marsha Berzon, and Raymond Fisher.

The attorney who represented President Obama, David A. DeJute, seemed to concede that if Keyes and Drake had filed this lawsuit several months before the election, they would have had standing. On an unrelated subject, he made a statement that is factually incorrect. He told the court that Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate in 2008, filed some lawsuits attempting to keep certain other presidential candidates (whom he did not name) off the ballot. There is no truth to this statement whatsoever.

When this case had been argued in U.S. District Court, it was called Keyes v Obama. At the 9th circuit hearing, attorney Orly Taitz represented Keyes, and attorney Gary Kreep represented Rev. Drake. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.


Comments

9th Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Presidential Eligibility Case — 23 Comments

  1. Which so-called lawyer has ANY brains about nation-state status stuff ???

    Natural born = AT BIRTH allegiance to a nation-state.

    naturalization = change of nation-state allegiance AFTER birth — to another nation-state.

    Physical place of birth means ABSOLUTELY ZERO — except for constitutional law MORONS.

    Every State obviously has standing — see Art. VII regarding who/what created the Constitution.

  2. I think the judges are leaning toward to right conclusion, which is that the plaintiffs lack Standing, given they are not asking for an outcome that would tangibly benefit them. During the election, they would have had Standing, but at the time they filed, it was over. They aren’t asking for a new election or financial restitution; they are asking the President Obama be removed from office, which doesn’t affect them anymore or less than it would affect a non-litigant.

  3. # 3 The party hack robot MORON SCOTUS folks have subverted *standing* since the 1920s.

    Who is supposed to be protected by having a CONSTITUTION ???

    even having constitutional required qualifications for certain officers ???

    i.e. in the U.S.A. Const – Reps, Senators and the Prez/VP.

    Does being an Elector-Voter in a sovereign State of the Union mean ZERO — in voting for Prez Electors ???

    See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.

  4. @Demo Rep – It might be possible that a State would have Standing (I’m not sure how, I’m just leaving that possibility open), however a State government did not file the lawsuits in question. They were filed on behalf of private citizens.

    Being a Elector-Voter does give one the ability to challenge a sitting president; through the elected Congress via impeachment.

    P.S. tone down the volume a bit, It’s tough to understand what you are writing.

  5. Here’s the difference between birthers and sane people. A sane person accepts reality – no matter how unpleasant it may be or how unhappy it makes them. They accept it because they know they have no choice.
    E.G. – I realize that there are a lot of people in this country who thought the election of a black (or half-black) president was a day they would never have to live to see.
    But it happened. And even the most die-hard racists -if still connected to reality – realize that their next chance to do anything about it will be the 2012 election.
    Birthers by contrast have chosen to deny reality and retreat into a fantasy world.

  6. # 5 Au contraire. The time is NOW to escalate the volume — against the EVIL UNEQUAL ballot access laws, the EVIL ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders, armies of MORON party hack robot judges in election law cases, etc. etc.

    Civilization is collapsing due to left/right control freaks in all New Age regimes — just in case any body has been off the planet since 1929.

  7. And btw, why are these two “Kreeps” being allowed to abuse an already overburdened American judicial system with this bogus, frivolous nonsense?
    More courts need to start following the lead of Judge Clay Land of Georgia ( a George W. Bush appointee) and start imposing sanctions – hefty financial sanctions.

  8. It seems to me that once elected, the matter is for the U.S. Congress to decide, not the courts. But, it also seems to me that to concede that candidates in an election have standing, that candidates can make this case next year and ask for an expedited decision. I suppose the theory that candidates have standing applies to all matters of constitutional qualification (age, residency as well as natural born citizenship), and that the court would give some presumption to the findings of election officials on these matters.

  9. # 9 The Congress has jurisdiction ONLY to rule on the qualifications of its own members —

    Art. I, Sec. 5 —
    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members ***

    — for history reasons — the old EVIL English monarchs versus the Parliament in the 1500s-1600s.

    Same type of language in most/all State constitutions regarding State legislatures.

    12th Amdt – the Congress ONLY counts the E.C. votes and votes more if the E.C. votes do not produce a Prez and/or VP.

    The Prez/VP qualifications are one more thing for the Fed courts to worry about — just like the State courts have to worry about the qualifications of State/local executive officers, State/local judges, local legislators.

  10. The racists lost. Obama is a natural born citizen, more so than was John McCain. His SS number is reflected by the time it was issued which confused the illiterate Birthers because they can’t look up what caused the confusion. The courts are right that the Birthers do not have standing and even if one plaintiff did, he would still lose the case.

  11. # 11- GEE — NO NO NO NO NO.

    Impeachment is a CRIMINAL process

    Ruling on qualifications is CIVIL.

    How many constitutional law juvenile MORONS are on this list ???

    Sorry – the CRISIS in the U.S.A. is TOTAL – NO time for MORONS.

    Unequal ballot access laws – UNEQUAL votes for each party hack winner, etc.

    Lots of MORON sideshow distractions.

  12. @Demo Rep

    What the court seems to be trying to determine is whether eligibility is a civil process after a president has been sworn in; you would be correct about it being a civil matter prior to an election being completed. The problem with the civil argument post-election is that no one would have proper standing in a civil trial, due to lack of specific injury, and the means to redress the injury.

    The court also cites intended separation of powers as a reason why a single district court cannot unseat a sitting president. Until ineligibility is proven, it must be assumed that the president is in fact eligible to hold the office they have.

    But hey, we’ll see how the court rules.

  13. It would seem that sore losers are crying ovr spilled milk. These fools have no grounds to bring these actions have been told by diffrent courts but are allowed to waste state money and time to keep being stupid.

    According to them while Obama was still in his mother’s womb people hatched this plot to elect this child born of a mixed race union to be elected president of the United States. That people forged birth records and newspaper announcements while the man child was living in a hut in Africa and his mother rocked him to sleep singing “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”

    This sounds like a movie script or a sitcom.

  14. Nobody cares that they lose this case- it’s all about setting up a valid lawsuit for the next election. Once the court rules who has standing and when they can sue in this type of case, then candidates will be able to file a lawsuit against Obama in 2012. I am sure we will have some candidates run for president who are only doing so in order to have standing to sue Obama.

  15. @Mike – Yes, that seems like it would be likely, although my guess is President Obama would win any court case easily, considering his documents have the weight of law and the Constitutionality of having a president with one foreign born parent was established in the Supreme Court case: United States v. Wong Kim Ark,

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

  16. I have researched Orly Taitz.

    She has never won a case all her suits were dismissed or ruled against her and her clients. This case alone has been ruled against twice.

    She was fined $20,000.00 for abuse of the courts refused to pay found guilty a second time and fees and penalties were added. They froze her assets until she paid.

    She represented a female solider who sued because she felt that President Obama was not able to order her to go to Iraq. The judge ruled that the solider had no problem with President Obama being commander and chief while she was state side it only became a issue when she was deployed overseas. The case was dismissed.

    Orly also loves to state the fact that she is Jewish from Russia but has on occasion called Jewish news commentators “Brown Shirts” so being racist is a proven fact.

    I want to see her birth certificate and citizenship papers! LOL

  17. Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive learn something like this before. So nice to search out someone with some unique thoughts on this subject. realy thanks for beginning this up. this web site is one thing that’s wanted on the web, someone with just a little originality. helpful job for bringing something new to the internet!

  18. make lsd

    I never claimed it was new info but felt that some would like a refresher on Orly Taitz. I’ve seen her in action a few times.

  19. @Paul,
    American “natural born” citizenship is based upon French not English law. Our founders clearly stated that only people born of American citizens can be trusted with the offices of the United States of America.

    The most liberal interpretation is that the FATHER must be a U.S. Citizen. Senate Resolution 511 and 4 Supreme Court cases establish this.

  20. @DooDooEcon

    That’s not what the Supreme Court ruled in 1898. I’ll repeat their finding.

    Supreme Court case: United States v. Wong Kim Ark,

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

    This decision has been a bedrock for decisions made in the lower courts.

    James Madison, a founding father, also said “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”.

    Please state the four Supreme Court cases following the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. I’ve not heard of them, and I don’t think anyone else has either.

  21. @DooDooEcon – BTW, Resolution 511 only pertains to citizens born outside the United States, as Senator McCain was. Go ahead and read it. It’s also non-binding, meaning it has no power under law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *