Recently I told you about Liberty Legal Foundation’s
contributions to the Supreme Court’s US v. AZ and Obamacare rulings. This week
I want to remind you about another frustrating victory.
This year Liberty Legal Foundation became the only organization to present
the Supreme Court with an opportunity to rule on the substantive definition of
“natural born citizen.”
Literally hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by individuals and organizations
attempting to challenge Obama’s qualifications to serve as President. Until LLF got involved, none of those lawsuits reached the Supreme Court
on the substantive question: What is
a “natural born citizen” as that term is defined in Article II of the
Constitution? Prior to our Welden v. Obama case, every other
eligibility lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court, and every one since, presented
the Court with procedural questions. Those procedural questions were fairly
routine, and had little or nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility. LLF’s case
was different.
Liberty Legal Foundation represented a Georgia resident through every
level of Georgia’s state courts, including the Georgia Supreme Court. Then we
took this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. What made this case unique was the
fact that the first court to hear our case, the lowest court in Georgia, ruled
on the substance of the matter. Because of LLF’s briefs, that
Georgia court denied Obama’s motion to dismiss on various procedural issues.
Unfortunately that Georgia court then decided that “natural born citizen,”
under Article II, means any person born on U.S. soil, regardless of the
citizenship of the parents.
While the Georgia court’s ruling was completely wrong, the fact that it
ruled on the actual issue was a huge victory. Even with a completely incorrect
ruling, the fact that the ruling addressed the definition of “natural born
citizen” meant that LLF could appeal the actual issue that we wanted resolved.
This was the first time this had happened anywhere in America, despite hundreds
of attempts by other organizations.
So we sent a
petition to review this definition to the US Supreme Court. Last
October the Supreme Court refused to accept our case. They had an opportunity to definitively answer a question that had
spawned hundreds of cases, and continues to spawn new cases almost every day.
Yet they said that it wasn’t worth their attention.
I believe that this refusal to accept our case represents
an acknowledgment that the Court didn’t want to accept a case when they knew
their ruling would either unseat a President, or remove any remaining belief
that the Court follows its own precedent. You see, the
Georgia court’s ruling is a joke. It completely ignored clear Supreme Court
precedent. It also relied completely upon an Indiana state
court ruling, instead of following U.S. Supreme Court precedent. BTW: the
Indiana court ruling was so flawed as to be laughable.
Please understand what I am telling you: The U.S. Supreme Court refused
to uphold the Constitution for political reasons. It’s that simple. If you still hesitate to believe me,
consider this: earlier in 2012 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas admitted
to reporters that the Court was “avoiding” the eligibility question.
So, why do I consider our Georgia eligibility case to be a victory?
Because, the only thing more tragic than courts refusing to enforce the law, is
a country that refuses to recognize this fact. For decades our judicial branch has
become more and more corrupt. LLF’s eligibility lawsuits have proven that point
beyond any doubt. While we are devastated at the
court’s refusal to do their duty, we are proud of the fact that our work gave
every level of the judicial branch an opportunity to do the right thing.
Because of your support and LLF’s efforts, the Supreme Court cannot claim
ignorance. The judicial branch can’t claim that it wasn’t presented with the
right argument. Individual judges’ failure to do their duty falls squarely on
their shoulders.
We hoped to find a righteous person wearing a judge’s
robe. We are yet to find one.
Source: David Welden, Georgia Leadership Coalition, re: Liberty Legal Foundation announcement,12/19/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment