Obama’s Straw Man Defense

©2010 drkate

The appalling game-playing by Obama’s lawyers in the Kerchner vs. Obama and Congress appeal,  including the Justice Department, is the kind of behavior that should draw disbarment and criminal penalties. It already makes a mockery of justice and of the Constitution, we know that.  But the case that Obama is ‘fighting’ is not the legal case that’s been brought against him.

Too cool to prove himself, Obama has created and is shadowboxing a straw man eligibility case–one that doesn’t exist.

Straw man. A fallacy in which an opponent’s argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.

An alert and astute poster named Fool Me Once, in a post sent to Commander Charles Kerchner,  pointed out that Obama’s legal team is creating the illusion of refuting Kerchner’s argument by misstating  it and then knocking down the fake case…

In this case, the government and Obama absolutely ignored the facts presented in Kerchner’s brief.  Indeed, instead of addressing any of the factual claims, the government ‘makes up’ that there is an issue of standing and jurisdiction, the Constitutional issues presented be damned.

What Kerchner Presented

The basic case against Obama is actually quite straight forward:

• Obama has not proven conclusively yet that he was born in the United States
• No state, or federal law enforcement agency, the media, or Congress vetted Obama to assure that he met the Constitutional qualifications for office
• Notwithstanding where he was born, Obama is not an Article II Natural Born Citizen because the British Nationality Act covered his birth and he therefore is British and his adoption by an Indonesian national would have required his naturalization upon return to the United States.  Obama is at best a dual citizen;
• Support for the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as contained in the Constitution is found  historical development, sources and authorities on the Constitution, and that neither the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court, acts of Congress, nor any case law has modified this essential definition.  The Supreme Court has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to anyone who was not “born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
• Defendants violated plaintiffs’ right to petition for redress under the First Amendment; deprived the plaintiffs of a liberty interest without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment;  deprived plaintiffs of equal protection; and violated plaintiff’s  Constitutional rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Although not required to do so, to these issues of fact Commander Kerchner proposed several solutions, or remedies, for which the court could grant relief, and through which the plaintiff’s claims could be redressed:

• Compel Obama to engage in discovery with plaintiffs  and the production of documents from Mr. Obama which can be examined by the Court;
• Define ‘natural born citizen’ which would then allow plaintiffs to submit a motion for summary judgment based on that legal definition;
• Invite Congress to conduct its own investigation to determine whether Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications for the office, using the Court’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’

The Significance of Timing

The initial filing in this case was filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath of office.  This brilliant move provides numerous opportunities to crack the usurper’s charade, and frustrates the defense of Obama.  It is also the most significant difference between the Kerchner case and all other cases filed on this subject.

First, the filing date and time occurred after the process had completed its course but before he took the oath of office and became bound to the Constitution. This process includes the election, the vote of the electoral college, and Congress’ action on January 8, 2009.  The significant point here is that Obama as a private citizen, and as the President-elect, still had an affirmative obligation to prove himself constitutionally eligible for the office.

What this timing does is to eliminate Obama and the government’s argument that Obama cannot be touched because he is the ‘de facto office holder’, and therefore ‘presumed eligible’. It also eliminates Congress’ and Dick Cheney’s excuse of not being responsible as they too were under affirmative obligation, under the 20th Amendment, to ensure that Obama met the Constitutional requirements of office.

By failing to do their duty, and failing to respond to petitions to investigate this matter, Congressional officials and VP Cheney are just as responsible for the usurpation as is Obama’s failure to prove himself.  Their actions violated our First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights, and violated Article II, Article I, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution.

After Obama took the oath of office, he became bound to the Constitution.  Rather than this giving him ‘de facto’ room to deceive, he is now even more obligated to show the Country and the world that he is indeed qualified for the office.

Because  this affirmative obligation to the Constitution is the law, and because Congress’ dereliction of duty can be seen as complicit in violation of the Constitution,  Obama and the government had to change the subject.

The Government Misstates the Case

The  lower Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner case, compelling this appeal, and government’s defense of Obama fits the straw man model to a “T”.  Obama is shadowboxing.

Obama’s defense personalizes the case, and  claims a set of issues and facts never stated in the original Kerchner complaint nor in the appeals brief.  The government makes this case about standing and jurisdiction, wholly ignoring the Constitutional issue raised.  Here are the basic examples of this approach:

• The complaint about Obama’s eligibility is alleged, so the merits do not have to be addressed;
• Even if the complaint were true, the plaintiffs have no standing and the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case;
• Even if the complaint were true, the plaintiffs are not injured any more specifically than all other Americans;
• The plaintiffs ‘feel’ they have a right to know if the CIC is eligible but this does not justify a legal action;
• Even if the complaint were true, the proper remedy for plaintiffs is with the legislative branch or at the ballot box.
• Other courts, faced with the same lawsuit have ignored the issue and dismissed it, so should  you.

This is an obtuse and arrogant response to Kerchner’s appeal.  The government doesn’t argue the merits of the case–no information on the 14th amendment, no argument about the case law or supreme court decisions, no argument whatsoever.

Do they know that they can’t win if they take on the facts, and, do they know that we know they can’t?

Instead, the government argues that whatever the facts, the plaintiffs have no standing, no right to bring this action before the court, primarily because they haven’t proven a particularized injury that is different than all Americans. 🙄  Thus the court does not have jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiffs have no standing, and well, the claim is ‘alleged’.

The government argues further that even if the plaintiffs did have standing, and the court had jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have not shown the court how it could remedy the situations raised in the claim.

Meet Obama's Legal Defense

So there you have it, the straw man:

• he is someone who is complaining because his candidate didn’t win and he should remedy that by talking to Congress or voting
• he is not injured any more than any other person, and cannot prove that injury anyway
• ‘every American’ cannot have standing and the court should not take jurisdiction
• every other case like this has been dismissed for the same reasons

What a ridiculously easy case to keep putting up, complete with all the misleading and off-point case law cited both by the Court and the government’s defense of Obama.  I have every confidence that Attorney Apuzzo has already, and will continue to, demolish Obama’s defense.

Already the standing issue has been addressed quite effectively in the Kerchner appeal, first by noting the inconsistencies in the Court’s opinions and second, through case law, previous opinions of the Supreme Court, and analyzing the application of the writings of Justice Anton Scalia, noting that standing is really a matter of ‘separation of powers’ between the branches of government as well as the proof of a particularized injury.

Apuzzo deliberately notes that this is not a citizen suit and there are no similarities of the Kerchner case with the case law cited by the government; that there are particularized injuries; and that the suit does not involve any possibility of disrupting the ‘separation of powers’ inherent in the Constitution nor does it infringe upon existing responsibilities.

Conclusion

The research, case law, arguments, and presentation of facts in the Kerchner brief is well worth the read, if only to re-familiarize yourself with of the facts and the major elements of the case.

It is still astounding to me that, in face of all the facts of this case, the one element that is needed to move it decisively forward is judicial courage.

May the dreams of General George Washington for our Country remain in the  hearts of the judiciary, and the protection of America and the Constitution foremost in their minds.