Eligibility case defendants don't want to answer now

Posted by Gordon on June 28, 2009 at 9:52am

Lawyer for Obama, Congress says representation decision unmade

Posted: April 28, 2009
8:49 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WND


Government lawyers defending President Obama and Congress in a lawsuit alleging that he's ineligible to occupy the Oval Office and that members of the House and Senate violated the constitutional rights of citizens by refusing to investigate want still more time to respond to the accusations.

The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other lawsuits that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It was filed in January by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Even though extensions had been granted to an initial round of requests to delay the proceedings, the government now says it needs even more time to prepare a response to a question that could be answered with a five-minute telephone call from the president to Hawaiian officials asking that his birth documentation be made public.

Instead, a request submitted by Ralph Marra Jr., the acting U.S. attorney, and Elizabeth Pascal, the assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, explains that the Department of Justice, operating under Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, still is working on a decision on representation for the defendants.

"The failure to file an answer, move, or to otherwise respond before the expiration of the time specified is not the result of any neglect on any of the Defendants' parts," the court filing submitted yesterday said.

"Representation decisions are made by a specialized group of individuals in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. In order to provide a fair opportunity for the Department to review this matter and to complete the representation determinations, Defendants respectfully request an extension of twenty (20) days from the date of this Order in which to answer, move, or otherwise respond," the court filing said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?