Alabama Supreme Court Justice Says Barack Obama Birth Certificate Would Not Stand Up in Court
Finally someone in America is paying attention to the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse investigation report indicating that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.
Hugh McInnish of Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Alabama Secretary of State challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to have his name on the November 2012 ballot for President of the United States. One of the stipulations in the case was a request to obtain an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate.
In a decision written on March 6, 2012, the Alabama State Supreme Court denied McInnish’s demand of obtaining the birth certificate copy before allowing Obama’s name to be placed on the ballot. The denial was not based on the merit of the evidence of forgery of the birth certificate, rather it was denied because they did not believe that the state supreme court had legal jurisdiction of the matter. To quote Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker:
“The language of the foregoing provision of the Alabama Constitution implies that this Court is without jurisdiction over Mcinnish’s original petition for a writ of mandamus. It is not our appellate jurisdiction that is being invoked, and this matter is not within original jurisdiction of this Court ‘to issue such remedial writs or orders as may be necessary to give it general supervision and control of courts of inferior jurisdiction.’ Ala. Const. 1901, Art. VI, § 140. The office of the Secretary of State of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction; that this Court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition first filed in this Court…”
However, Justice Parker wrote that the evidence McInnish provided along with the findings of the Cold Case Posse make Obama’s birth certificate to be highly suspect and questions if it would be able to stand up in a court of law. He also said that he is experienced in computer science and indicated he concurs with the conclusion of forgery made by the Cold Case Posse.
Supreme irony? Top court poised to throw out Obamacare in echo of case Obama made against Hillary Clinton
It is a tad unfortunate that just days after the White House embraced the term “Obamacare” – previously regarded on the Left as a pejorative label – a majority of the nine Supreme Court justices have given strong indications they will rule it unconstitutional.
Even more ironic is that the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.
At issue today was the so-called ‘individual mandate” – the federal government’s act of compelling Americans to buy health insurance. It is the centrepiece of the Affordable Health Care Act – aka Obamacare – which is the signature achievement of Obama’s presidency thus far.
But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”
In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:
This was one of the policies that allowed him to differentiate himself from Clinton and John Edwards, the serial sleazeball who (believe it or not given what we now know he was up to) had a pretty good shot at winning the Democratic nomination.
Obama felt so strongly about the issue that he even cut an ad attacking Clinton for her support of the individual mandate. “Hillary Clinton’s attacking, but what’s she not telling you about her health care plan?” the April 2008 ad asked. “It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”
Once in office, Obama changed his mind, telling CBS in July 2009: “During the campaign I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they’ll come. I am now in favour of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption.” This volte face merited a “full flop” rating from Politifact.
Fast forward to today and there were five justices who appeared to be dead set against the idea of an individual mandate. Justice Clarence Thomas hasn’t asked a question in the court for six years but as the most conservative lawyer on the court is a safe “no”. You can find a transcript of the oral arguments here and audio can be downloaded here.
Justice Antonin Scalia asked the flailing Solicitor General Donald Verrillii: “Could you define the market? Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.”
Chief Justice John Roberts queried: “So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?”
Justice Samuel Alito jabbed: “All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, ‘You know what you’re doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you’re going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance and you haven’t saved money for it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody else’. Isn’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?”
Worst of all for Obamacare supporters, Justice Anthony Kennedy, always viewed as the swing vote on the court, sounded like one of the most sceptical of all. “The reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act,” he said at one point. “In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger.
At other junctures he asked “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” and “So the Federal government says everybody has to join an exercise club?”
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed on the side of upholding the mandate – though in the case of Sotomayor there was, surprisingly, some doubt. The only hope for liberals appears to be that Roberts, who is known to be leery of the court being seen as overly political, comes down on their side after some of his questions gave them a modicum of encouragement.
If Obamacare is thrown out it is likely to be a political disaster for Obama, and could very well be a nail in the coffin of his re-election hopes. Some Democrats believe such an outcome could allow Obama to run against a right-wing Supreme Court as well as a right-win, do-nothing Congress.
But it would be difficult to portray Justice Kennedy is an obstructionist Republican, just as it will be hard to run against a Congress that is controlled in one chamber by the Democrats. And running as an outsider while living at 1600 Pennsylvania? Good luck with that.
Given Obama’s open mic gaffe – “After my election, I have more flexibility” – yesterday, the potential for creating a narrative that the President is a slippery, disingenuous campaigner is very real. American Crossroads, the Republican super PAC, has already been quick off the mark with this web ad on Obama as a health care flip flopper:
But the most fundamental problem for the President is that if the heart of Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional then he will be left empty-handed after spending two years and virtually all his political capital on jamming through the bill without a single Republican vote.
In short, it will make him look like a loser – not a quality Americans value in their presidents. And the fact that the Republican nominee will be able to quote Obama’s own criticisms of the individual mandate against him will be the icing on the cake
FBI Turns Off Thousands of GPS Devices After Supreme Court Ruling
By Julia Angwin
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning the warrantless use of GPS tracking devices has caused a “sea change” inside the U.S. Justice Department, according to FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann, speaking at a University of San Francisco conference called “Big Brother in the 21st Century” on Friday, said that the court ruling prompted the FBI to turn off about 3,000 GPS tracking devices that were in use.
These devices were often stuck underneath cars to track the movements of the car owners. In U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that using a device to track a car owner without a search warrant violated the law.
After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them.
Mr. Weissmann said that the FBI is now working to develop new guidelines for the use of GPS devices. He said the agency is also working on guidelines to cover the broader implications of the court decision beyond GPS devices.
For instance, he said, agency is now “wrestling” with the legality of whether agents can lift up the lid of a trash can without committing trespass. The majority opinion in U.S. v. Jones held that the agents had trespassed when placing the GPS device on a car without warrant.
He said the agency is also considering the implications of the concurring justices – whose arguments were largely based on the idea that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements, even if those movements are in public.
“From a law enforcement perspective, even though its not technically holding, we have to anticipate how it’s going to go down the road,” Mr. Weissmann said.
Bill Clinton Supports Changing 22nd Amendment on Presidential Term Limits
by Billy Hallowell
Former President Bill Clinton says he supports a new “rule” in dealing with limits to presidential governance. After individuals serve two terms, he says they should be able to serve a third — with a few caveats.
First and foremost, this regulation, should it be adopted, shouldn’t apply to anyone who has already served. Also, the former president would want the individual seeking a third round in the White House to take some time off after his or her second term.
Clinton was speaking to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he was promoting his new book, “Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy.”
When co-host Joe Scarborough asked, “Shouldn’t a president be able to take two terms, take time off and run again? Shouldn’t Americans have that choice?,” Clinton answered affirmatively, saying:
“I’ve always thought that should be the rule. I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”
Nearly three years into President Obama’s first term in office, Michelle Obama finally said something with which I can agree.
At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:
“We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come … let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”
This was music to the ears of the small, affluent crowd of admirers who cheered and applauded. But to gun owners, Michelle Obama’s remarks should sound like a warning bell, alerting us to the danger ahead should Barack Obama win re-election and get the opportunity to alter the current make-up of the Supreme Court.
When Americans flock to the polls in 13 months, we will not simply decide which direction our country should take over the next four years. Rather, we will decide whether or not our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms will survive over the next several decades.
Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.
If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.
If these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.
Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.
If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.
NRA members, gun owners and all freedom-loving Americans should heed Michelle Obama’s warning. We must spend the next 13 months working to make sure her husband doesn’t get four more years to destroy American freedom for generations to come.
Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.
Supreme Court Upheld Arizona Immigration Laws
By Frosty Wooldridge
In what can only be labeled a victory for the American people and the rule of law along with states’ rights, the Supreme Court this week upheld Arizona’s E-Verify law that mandates that employers hire legal American citizens and not illegal aliens.
Roy Beck, director of www.NumbersUSA.org , gave this definitive interview on this victory:
“The most important result of today’s Supreme Court ruling probably is not what will happen in the states but in Congress,” said Beck. “With more than a dozen states with different E-Verify laws and different rules for businesses — and with the Supreme Court opening the way for all other states to adopt their own rules — the business lobbies ought to be ready to work with Congress to pass a uniform national law.
“Many businesses that operate in multiple states are already complaining to their lobbyists that they don’t like operating under all the different rules and would prefer a national law. Unless Congress passes a mandatory E-Verify law this year, at least a dozen more states are likely next winter to pass their own E-Verify laws.
“One of the complaints that business lobbyists are hearing from their members in states WITH E-Verify laws is that they don’t like competing with businesses in other states that are allowed to use cheaper illegal labor while forcing taxpayers to subsidize them. So many businesses in E-Verify states are joining us in the pressure for a national law.”
BUSINESS LOBBIES HAVE BLOCKED TOTAL E-VERIFY IN CONGRESS FOR 15 YEARS — BUT WE HAVE BEEN WINNING STEP VICTORIES
‘Lobbyists for business groups and illegal-alien advocacy groups have blocked Congress from passing a national mandatory law since 1996,” said Beck. “NumbersUSA and its allies have fought every year to win incremental victories. First, to create the workplace verification system as a pilot program for just a few states. Later, to expand the voluntary system nationwide. Most recently to persuade Pres. Obama to mandate its use for all federal contractors.
“If the Supreme Court had knocked us down today, the business lobbies would have looked out over a whole nation without any states requring employers to electronically verify that they weren’t hiring illegal foreign workers. And they would have felt little pressure to do anything other than they’ve always done, which is to throw all their weight in Congress toward protecting employers that prefer to hire illegal aliens over unemployed Americans. But not now.”
THIS WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT IMMIGRATION COURT CASE — AND WE WON IT
The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115.
“Of all the open-border groups’ court challenges against immigration enforcement across the country, this suit before the U.S. Supreme Court (that was heard last December) was/is by far the most important.”
WE WON IT 5-3!
“Nothing will do more to retard future illegal immigration and accelerate the departure of the current illegal population than taking away the job magnet,” said Beck. “Arizona and more than a dozen other states have already passed various versions of E-Verify law. All of those could have been wiped out when the Supreme Court announced its decision this morning.
“But instead, our strategy of mandating E-Verify in as many states as possible to pressure Congress to do it nationwide has been approved by the highest court of the land.”
NumbersUSA’s AMICUS BRIEF WAS PART OF THIS COURT CASE
“You may remember that as soon as the Supreme Court began business last fall NumbersUSA filed an Amicus brief in support of the State of Arizona making sure that the Justices and their clerks were aware of a number of important legal and factual points that we weren’t certain were in the main briefs.
“The key issue in the court case was whether Arizona could take away the business license of an employer who refuses to use E-Verify. The NumbersUSA Amicus went into great detail in showing that such a state law is precisely what Congress has set up as a state enforcement option over the last 25 years. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts who said that Arizona’s E-Verify law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”
“Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. (The newest Justice, Elena Kagan, was not involved in this case because she had been part of Pres. Obama’s support of the Chamber of Commerce before she was elected to the Court.)
“Please keep opening our email Alerts and joining with your fellow citizens in considering all the actions we will be offering you the next weeks to get a vote on E-Verify on the House floor this summer and in the Senate by fall.”
NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.comHe is the author of: America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans. Copies available: 1 888 280 7715