Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

Over the past year, both before and since the elections, there have been a  number of court cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility.  Most  of the cases have been dismissed by judges for reasons that are not truly  legitimate, but many feel they were dismissed to avoid the political  ramifications.

Just last week I wrote  about a case that was filed in Florida, that not only challenged Obama’s  eligibility, but stated that he was a direct threat to the safety and security  of the United States.  That case has yet to be heard.

Yet another case filed in Alabama may present one of the best chances of  producing a ruling against Obama.  In this case, Hugh McInnish and others  have filed suit against Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman for failure to  properly verify the eligibility of Barack Obama.  The case points out that  the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s  eligibility and that Chapman failed to accurately verify Obama’s  eligibility.

The attorney handling this case is the same attorney handling the case in  Florida. Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and the Klayman Law Firm in  Washington, will hopefully be arguing this case before the Alabama State Supreme  Court. The reason the case is going to the state Supreme Court is that a  previous judge dismissed the case. In that case the state  argued:

“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court… Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement  officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge  gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should  not’ certify the candidate.”

Klayman argues that this admission of the state justifies the actions taken  by his clients. They believe that there is sufficient evidence presented by the  Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department Cold Case Posse to indicate that the long  form birth certificate presented by the White House on behalf of Obama is in  fact a forgery and that its presentation to the people of the United States  constitutes fraud. Klayman  argues:

“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama  is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible  evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth  certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent.”

“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely  de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr.  Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama  as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire  presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born  citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary.”

What raises hopes for the success of this case lies with the members of the  Alabama state Supreme Court. In an earlier hearing on the same argument the high  court denied the petition by McInnish to require that Obama produce an original  copy of his birth certificate. When Alabama’s High Court denied that earlier  petition Justice Tom Parker filed an unpublished concurrence in the case stating  that the charges of forgery were a legitimate concern.

In addition to Justice Parker, Klayman is counting on newly elected Chief  Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. Chief Justice Moore is a strong  advocate of constitutional law rather than ruling on the prevailing politics of  the time. When Moore won re-election to the state Supreme Court he vowed that he  will do his utmost to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as  the Constitution of the state of Alabama.

In speaking on constitutional law, Moore  said that humans will misbehave when they are not constrained by law and  that the Constitution was set up with the goal to restraining human excesses. He  went on to describe his view of constitutional law as:

“The whole basis of the Constitution is the restraint strength of human  power. The only way you can do that is acknowledged that morality and law does  come from God. No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints  of power. The members of the legislature don’t and neither does the Supreme  Court. The Constitution is the rule of law and my job is to uphold the rule of  law.”

Klayman is hoping that the skepticism of Justice Parker and the staunch stand  for constitutional law by Chief Justice Moore will be enough to prove their case  that Barack Hussein Obama has not provided the proper legal documentation to  prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for president of the United  States as set by the Constitution. This case above all others that I have seen  in the past year stands the best chance of winning.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8491/will-alabama-supreme-court-rule-obama-ineligible/#ixzz2Ladaf75t

Related articles

• Judge Roy Moore “No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen”” (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
• Top public-interest attorney refuses to recognize Obama as president (ConservativeActionAlerts.com)
• Obama and Beyoncé: 2 frauds in a pod (veteran-patriot.com)
• Supreme Court justices deny and trash the very US Constitution which gives them their lifetime appointment livelihoods (moralmatters.org)

Filed under: obama fraud, politics, U.S. Congress, U.S. Government, U.S. Senate Tagged: Alabama, Barack Obama, Larry Klayman, Obama, Roy Moore, Supreme Court, United States, United States Constitution