Another Obama Challenge at Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled January 7, 2011, to consider in conference another case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President. Taitz v. McDonald et. al. has been working its way through the lower courts. This case, like others, questions Obama’s eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution which says the President must be a “natural born” citizen. His father was a British subject when Obama was born.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240913

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ 

However, this case goes further as attorney Orly Taitz claims that she has standing since she was fined by a lower court and therefore is an injured party, and her civil rights were violated. Furthermore, it brings up a criminal matter in that it provides evidence obtained by private investigators that the Social Security number being used by Obama was issued in Connecticut, a state where Obama has never resided, and it was originally issued to a Connecticut resident who was born in 1890. This would appear to be evidence of fraud.

So far the Court has turned away the challenges that have been brought, most recently Kerchner et. al. vs Obama et. al., though there is some question as to why Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves since they potentially have a personal stake in the outcome of any case the Court finally agrees to hear. By not recusing themselves, it changed the vote in  Obama’s favor and case was refused.

Even if the justices turn Taitz v. McDonald et. al. away, the challenges to Obama’s eligibility do not seem to stop coming. Right behind this case is Barnett v. Obama, currently before the Ninth Court of Appeals, which might be more difficult to turn away since one of the plaintiffs is former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who ran for President against Obama and would seem to obviously have “standing.”

It would seem that sooner or later the Court will have to agree to hear one of these challenges if the Constitution of the United States is still the law of the land. Which one it will be is yet to be seen.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


%d bloggers like this: