One of the last remaining court battles over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility has gone down in flames in a 7-2 decision by the Alabama Supreme Court to render “no opinion.”
However, the dissenting minority of Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore concluded the case has serious constitutional significance, warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state.
Moore wrote in his dissent that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.”
“Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore argued.
He said the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.”
“Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”
Parker agreed with Moore’s reasoning, except that he would call for the secretary of state to investigate eligibility issues once he “has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot.”
Both justices earlier had expressed concern about the issue.
Parker had filed a special, unpublished concurrence arguing that plaintiff Hugh McInnish’s charge of “forgery” was legitimate cause for concern.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.
Moore, in an interview with WND in 2010, defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Lakin was stripped of his rank and removed from the military when he demanded to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander-in-chief of the military before carrying out deployment orders. He reasoned the orders would be illegal if Obama was not eligible to be president.
At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
In the 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and considerable evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
Read the court’s opinion.
Moore explained that the Alabama case did not request a judicial determination of Obama’s eligibility but an order that the elections officials in the state assure voters that candidates were eligible under the law.
More of article at link:
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/03/breaking-judge-rules-on-obama-eligibility/#t2w2c5tyCpHBeKZs.99