November 23, 2009 07:29 PM UTC

"Birther" Issue Has Been Squashed Already. Don't Hate the Constitution Because It Says You're Wrong

•  
• by: cunninjo

Between the heated discussions on the Wheat Ridge billboard and continued talk of the President’s “real” birthplace, I found myself enraged a bit this morning. And then I thought, “Hasn’t the “Birther” issue been decided in court already? And if so, why do these “birthers” hate the Constitution and it’s legal system?”

So after some quick research I found that indeed this issue has been decided in court. At least two U.S. District Court Judges have thrown out cases challenging Barack Obama’s legitimacy as President.

The first case, described here, involved Army Captain Connie Rhodes saying she doesn’t have to follow orders from the President because he is illegitimate. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land was very clear about his legal opinion on the matter:

“(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.'”

The judge continues on to argue that with 7 primary opponents spending $300 million dollars, and a general election opponent spending $84 million,

“It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought”

The real kicker is when Judge Land blatantly exposes the irrational logic being used by the Glenn Beck-Peter Boyles-Birther fools:  

“Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, plaintiff unashamedly alleges that defendant has the burden to prove his ‘natural born’ status. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.

Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so”

This is not coming from some political hack. This is a federal judge.

The most recent case (forgive the Right-wing webpage linked. They had good quotes from the judge) involved U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter. He threw out a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s citizenship and qualifications for the presidency citing the  Constitution’s clear procedures for removing a President from office in which the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial, has jurisdiction.

The judge continued, harshly criticizing Orly Taitz, the lead prosecutor in both cases,

“Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the court. Instead, plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the court has no desire to chill plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep … to bring serious issues before the court. The court has attempted to give plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.”

I find it at the least convenient, if not blatantly hypocritical, to cite Article Two of the Constitution listing the qualifications of President, while dismissing Article Three explaining the court system. This issue has been decided through the court system. Precedent is set and anyone who continues to support frivolous claims against President Obama’s legal qualifications is spitting on our Constitution.