Posted by
Glenn Flowers on Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:57:26 PM
We all know about the Constitution requiring a person to be a natural born citizen to be president. We also know at least seventeen lawsuits have been filed aiming to prevent Obama from becoming the president because he, allegedly, is not qualified, or to demand that he provide proof he is qualified. And, we are aware that all but one of these suits have been dismissed without considering whether Obama is or is not qualified, but because the courts say the people filing the suits had no legal right to do so. Well, after much study and research, it is my amateur and not so educated opinion that the courts have all been legally and Constutionally correct in their rulings.
Why would I come to that conclusion when so many attorneys are claiming the courts were wrong? Aren’t these courts ignoring our rights as citizens to question the qualifications of someone who wants to be the next leader of America, and the free world? I have come to agree with the courts because they are right and we are wrong.
Consider the following hypothetical situation if you will. A certain state has passed new eminent domain legislation designed to prevent private property being seized under eminent domain when there is no real benefit to the community that would substantiate the need for that seizure. A county supervisor decides to launch a study group to determine the need for a second animal control facility that would require property to be seized. A citizen of a neighboring state has knowledge that proves the existing animal control facility is only being utilized at 50% of its capability. That person files a motion seeking a temporary restraining order against the county official to prevent the seizure of personal property. What should be the order of the court as to a restraining order?
The only decision the court should render is that the filer of the motion lacks standing, and dismiss the motion. Why? First because there is no law preventing the study being undertaken, , and second, the filer is not a citizen of the county in question and is not in a position to be damaged by property seizures.
This hypothetical situation demonstrates the validity and knowledge of applicable law inherent in the sixteen dismissals of suits seeking proof of Obama’s qualifications to become the president. There is no Constitutional requirement that a person be qualified to run for the office of president, only to hold that office and, therefore, no law has been broken by Obama. Because Obama is innocent of violating the Constitution these people filing lawsuits have not been damaged and, therfore, lack standing to file any suits requiring Obama prove his citizenship.
The fact that the only suit not summarily dismissed is the original suit filed by Philip Berg, the first action taken against Obama initiating the fury of subsequent filings, is, in my opinion, a possible clue into the thinking of the courts regarding the need for any future determination of Obama’s qualifications for the presidency.
Berg’s motion was complex, seeking several separate actions by the court for various reasons and allegations to be taken to prevent Obama’s being elected or, if elected, to remove him from office. On the other hand, all dismissed cases were very narrowly defined and offering only a single allegation seeking only to prevent his being elected. I believe that the court might be waiting until Obama has been sworn into office, thereby committing the action Berg alleges is a violation of the Constitution. At that point, the court has jurisdiction to grant Berg’s request for immediate discovery and demand Obama provide proof of his eligibility to do what he has already done, hold the office of the president. If he is unwilling or unable to provide proof of his natural born status, there will be no need for impeachment as he is NOT the president but an impostor, nor will there be any need for a criminal trial to determine his guilt. Non compliance with an order by the court to provide proof of eligibility is all that is required to determine his ineligibility, and Obama would be sentenced for his fraud and violation of the Constitution, both federal felonies.
As I am not an attorney my conclusions are no more than the result of a recreational pursuit akin to a fishing expedition. But, knowing the smell of fish, and having studied Obama since March, 2007, I believe the correlation I’ve made between the two are more than just an imagined whiff of something rotten in Denmark.
Glenn Flowers