Rep. Gohmert Believes “Whole Truth will Eventually be Public” on Presidential Eligibility
A concerned citizen from Texas received the following response from former federal district judge-turned-Congressional Rep. Louie Gohmert (R) regarding the presidential eligibility issue:
Thank you for contacting me in regards to President-Elect Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue.
Dozens of lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as President have been filed in state and federal courts all over the country, including a suit filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear on January 12, 2009. Mr. Berg is now attempting to sue in the name of a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel to determine whether Mr. Obama is qualified to give orders calling the colonel back into the service. Please know that I will continue to closely follow this important legal issue as it works its way through our judicial system.
You are right to be concerned with anything as important as the Constitutional requirements for holding the highest elected office in this country. Failing to be concerned would send a message that the law just doesn’t matter if you’re in a high enough office. I believe the system will work and the whole truth will eventually be public. In the meantime, I truly do appreciate your input and also having the opportunity to be your servant in the United States House of Representatives.
With kindest regards, I am
Very Truly Yours,
Hon. Louie Gohmert [emphasis added]
This letter was dated February 6, 2009, so I find it rather encouraging that there are those federal representatives out there who are watching these cases with some semblance of an open mind. Further, what Rep. Gohmert says in the emphasized portion of his letter is precisely the stance that I take on the eligibility saga:
Nobody is above the law, no matter how charismatic they are, no matter what that law says.
-Phil
tishri,
Actually, it was in reference to what President GW Bush could have been impeached for, and no, I don’t think it could have been over going to war in Iraq. I did support that, even though that initiative very well predated my blog’s existence
-Phil
Dear Phil:
I haven’t posted here in a while, but I had read something earlier that you wrote in reference to the Iraq war that you didn’t think that we should have been in it, at least I think it was you. If it wasn’t and since I can’t find it anyway, then I do apologize. However, we should definitely have been in that war. I was trying to find a way to write you personally on this subject, but I can’t. If the Arabs really understood who we are as a nation, we have have been dead a long time ago. Keep that in mind. I’m not talking about all of them, but I’m pretty sure many may know this. And I’m talking here scripturally. Is there a place that I can write you personally, and if not, that is okay too.
Tishri
I agree the truth will eventually come out, 50 – 100 years from now or later.
You got a problem whoever you are because it is a foregone conclusion in this day and age that you are to show up with the pertinent documentation. “Oh wait” ‘bama responds “the Constitution doesn’t say anything about having the documentation handy”. Sorry that stupid excuse ain’t gonna work. When you are required to be born in this country to run for president you had better be prepared to show it to the taxpayers when asked for it. This is the reason that all fifty states are going to require all pertinent paperwork in order to file to be put on their ballot in the year 2012. It is people like you who are not law abiding citizens that are supporting this man in his efforts to steal from the hard working taxpayers and plunging us into deeper economic despair. Ask yourself the question “Why did ‘bamy put up a sorry ass excuse for a birth certificate on the internet?” Answer: Because he is trying to fake a few stupid people into believing that it is real because he knows it is the Constitution. In other words your hero refused to use the same arguement that you are using because that arguement won’t fly with the Democratic party, the Clintons, the Honorable Jimmy Carter and all of those other fine Democrats who have served this country so well and have not I repeat have not badmouthed the USA to get elected. Those aforementioned people all are privvy to the truth of ‘bamy’s origins. They know first hand that he probably was born in Hawaii. My only problem with ‘bamy is he badmouthed my country to get elected to get people to sympathize with him. In my book he is a traitor and is treasonous and he is going to answer for his crimes against my country and I am going to make his life as miserable as possible.
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.
I am thankful to all those who are working so hard to bring these “secrecies” out. 
Carol,
Don’t know the judge, but I assume that he is competent and has good judgment.
My guess is that this was a novel issue, and the judge to hear arguments on whether he had jurisdiction or not. By the time Jody’s case was heard, there had been numerous decisions that the judge hearing Jody’s case could look to in determining jurisdiction and standing.
Part of the issue is that you seem not to understand procedure. Before you can argue your case on the merits, you must prove that the court has jurisdiction to hear your case. PRoving the court can hear the case is not a matter of presenting your evidence, but showing that the court has the authority to decide the case.
It doesn’t matter if you can say “I have videotape of Barack Obama being born in Kenya. I have three priests, five nuns, and the nice little old lady who makes cookies, all of who were present at Obama’s birth in Kenya.” That isn’t relevant to jurisdiction. If that’s what you argued, that’s why you lost.
1Lishell:
P.S.
You’ve forgotten or didn’t know that the queen is the most powerful piece.
1Lishell
With all due respect, Counselor, you still don’t get it. I am not referring to the rule of law here, but judgement or lack thereof on the part of Judge Kelsey.
Do you mean to suggest this venerable old judge could not have known from the outset he had no jurisdiction? He read my pleadings ahead of time. He set an emergency hearing for later in the day. He teleconferenced in two of Brunner’s counsel. He heard their arguments over the phone. Based on this emergency hearing, he set a date for the following week. He could have stopped this at any point, but didn’t. He kept going. One would think with some 30+ years on the bench, this judge would have known the limitations of his court for a suit of this nature.
So my conclusion, based on your statements is the judge was either incompetent or intrigued to hear my arguments. Either way, not my fault he “carried on.”
BTW, still waiting on your business card. You said earlier that next time I needed to hire an attorney. Are you licensed in Ohio?
Carol,
You’re wrong. Judge Kelsey heard a hearing on whether to grant Brunner’s 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The 12(b)(1) motion was to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The reason for the hearing was to establish whether or not Kelsey had jurisdiction, and whether, if jurisdiction was established, you stated a claim for which relief could be granted. The decision was that Brunner’s 12(b)(1) motion showed the court lacked SMJ. Therefore, the case was dismissed. I don’t see any inconsistency.
You can believe you checkmated me all you want, but you’re ignoring the fact that your only piece is a pawn and it’s about 4 spaces from my king.
I sure hope Mr. Gohmert is true to his word. The courts aren’t true to the American people, I can only wonder if they too have been paid off with the dirty money that got the O in office. Believe me, he is NOT your, mine or our president. Shame on the system for allowing this to happen.
Just cuz you could get a pack of cigs from the quickie mart at age 5 doesn’t mean just any ol’ foreigner can be a real president. No matter how audacious, he’s got to show his credentials!
1Lishell
I am a Virgo. I have a very logical mind. If you have a JD, you must have a logical mind as well. Please don’t put any spin on my comment.
In one instance you stated my case was “frivolous and without merit”, and basically I was the loser so should pay costs.
You told Jody B. a court should only hear a case “if it has jurisdiction”, and apparently the court Jody filed in did not. So her case was not even heard.
Therefore, by logic and implication, Judge Kelsey should pay costs because he agreed to hear a case he knew he had no jurisdiction over, therefore “wasting the court’s time and money.”
I really do believe I have checkmated you, Counselor.
Carol,
When I said move on the arguments, I should have said argument on the merits.
From reading the dismissal order, it looks as though Brunner’s attorneys filed a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and after hearing arguments on the motion, Judge Kelsey granted the dismissal.
I don’t see how this is inconsistent with what I said above.
Jody:
Please see my comment on 2-14-09 @ 5:55pm.
1Lishell is toast.
Your Fellow Compatriot,
Carol Greenberg
1Lishell: Yes, I am back. Over here. So get used to it.
In Phil’s other thread, Greenberg & Brunner; you seemed to take perverse pleasure in attempting to torture me, and now Jody B; that these cases have “no merit, are frivolous, and the court lacks jurisdiction.” HOWEVER, may I point out your own words to Jody:
“Jody,
If the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide the case, it would be a waste of time to move on to the arguments. That’s one of the most basic principles of jurisdiction.
A court must have personal jurisdiction (the court must be able to exercise power over all the parties involved) and the court must have subject matter jurisdiction (the court must have the power to decide the issue involved). If both of those criteria aren’t met, any decision handed down by the court is null and void.”
In MY case, Judge Kelsey agreed to hear. Emergency hearing, AND hearing the following week. Part of his final decision was: “court lacks jurisdiction in this matter.”
So now you are in ESSENCE SAYING Judge Kelsey lacked “good judgment” in HEARING my case because he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG his court lacked jurisdiction? So then HE is the one who WASTED TIME AND THE COURT’S MONEY, CORRECT??? AND I AM PENALIZED??? WITH COURT COSTS??? Judge Kelsey and I both live in the same city. We both drink the same water. PLEASE!!! 1LISHELL!!! ‘SPLAIN IT TO ME!!!
WHICH ONE OF US IS WRONG??? I WANNA HEAR YOU GET OUT OF THIS ONE!!!
TAKE IT UP WITH THE JUDGE!!! OR AS YOU SAID TO ME BEFORE: “SHUT UP.
To 1Lishell:
Shalom.
JeffM,
I don’t understand your question. Here’s a better one:
Can you show me a statute that says the president is within the scope of 5 U.S.C. or 5 CFR 731?
1Lishell,
Frankly and obviously, Mr. Donofrio’s definition probably wouldn’t be the one with which the States would go, but glad to see that we get what we’re both saying.
For commenting, you can use {em}{/em} (replace the curly brackets with angled brackets; the code tag doesn’t work in comments that would otherwise show you the exact tags) for italics and {u}/{/u} for underlining.
-Phil
KENYA PARLIAMENT
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
Wednesday, 5th November, 2008
The House met at 9:00 a.m.
http://d.scribd.com/docs/266mn92f3y4mjfljgmjt.pdf
U.S. President
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Many of us already have evidence that Obama was born in Kenya NOT Hawaii like he would want you to believe. He falsified the certificate of birth posted on his “fight the smears” website, which has been proven by 3 expert forensics.
After Obama was born in Kenya, his mother took him to Hawaii to complete an application for certificate of birth because in 1961 Hawaii allowed its citizens who gave birth to a foreign child to be able to complete the application for certificate of birth.
This stuff cannot be made up. Some of you in denial need to get a grip with reality. Obama is NOT qualified to sit in the Office of President and should be removed ASAP.
Phil,
I agree with you on the definition of citizen being defined by the 14th Amendment and case law, but a lot of the birthers have adopted Leo Donofrio’s definition that natural born citizen means birthright citizenship plus two U.S. nationals for parents. I call Donofrio’s definition “birthright+.”
Is there any way to italicize or underline text? I’d like to be able to do one or the other when I’m referencing cases.
1Lishell,
Could you please cite the exact references in Title 5 of the U.S. Code? No interpretations. Just what you are referring to.
I’m simply not seeing this in the legal documentation.
1Lishell,
There is only ONE place in all laws written between 1750 and 1800 from every nation that defines what “Natural Born Citizen” really means. And that is directly from de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
de Vattel’s Law of Nations has been cited numerous times by Justice Scalia, most recently in 2008. SCOTUS has indicated several times in the past 3 years that this famous literary documents have been the backbone of International Law over the past 250 years. May I quote how Mr. Franklin saw de Vattel and how our framing fathers used 75% of its work to frame the Constitution???
1Lishell,
Please explain. I don’t see what you are saying is quoted anywhere in the Constitution.
Either you qualify for POTUS or you do not. There is no “deadlock” condition to this set of requirements. You either qualify or you do not. It’s clear as day.
1Lishell,
While I’ll certainly admit to not being nearly up to speed on all of the back-and-forths on my own blog RE: citizen definitions, I would have thought that the 14th Amendment and the famous Wong Kim Ark (?) case specifically laid out certain potential definitions of “natural born citizen.” Maybe I’m wrong.
Either way, I think it would be an excellent venture for a State to (1) define, to the best of its ability, such a definition; (2) encapsulate that definition with vital documentation from a given candidate; so that (3) if/when someone decides to take the statute to Court, we finally get an assessment of the definition.
Of course, that could also backfire, with a Court simply saying, “We don’t think your definition is constitutional,” which would have the dual effect of saying what’s not a definition as well as potentially setting precedent for any future developments in this area.
Interesting stuff, for sure.
-Phil
Phil,
In regards to your first point, how can a state enforce something that is not defined?
“[I]t is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear. When a rule of conduct is laid down in words that evoke in the common mind only the picture of vehicles moving on land, the statute should not be extended to aircraft simply because it may seem to us that a similar policy applies, or upon the speculation that if the legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used.” McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931).
Requiring birthright+ seems to me to be reading into the Constitution a requirement that simply isn’t there in language the common world will understand. I would argue that the common world understanding of natural born citizen is birthright, and not birthright+.
1Lishell,
I’m going to give you a push back RE: term limits. Please see my posting, “Candidate Qualification: SCOTUS Ruled No to Additional State Qualifications,” regarding U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON (1995).
So, two things regarding your comment and my posting:
1. While I believe the States would do way to stay away from defining the definition of a natural born citizen, they should instead focus on enforcing the concept via documentation (which is a completely legitimate and laudable goal and likely to be constitutional);
2. As far as term limits are concerned, what the Supremes said in the quoted case is that States cannot impose additional requirements upon candidates over and above what the Constitution already stipulates.
-Phil
Could you post the transcript of the hearing or a link to the transcript? We have read Orly’s account of what happened. Perhaps you could point out the specific instances of where the court reporter fraudulently transcribed what was stated.
Phil,
I read it, and you’re correct about the issue of adding background checks or vetting of federal elected officials-there’s other constitutional issues too, such as having the DoJ, a part of the executive branch, determining the fitness of members of the legislative branch.
However, I think you’re misinterpreting the 10th amendment in your post “What happens after the Obama Lawsuits.” State and federal courts have consistently struck down efforts by states to impose term limits on their U.S. Representatives or Senators. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). In that case, SCOTUS affirmed an Arkansas Supreme Court decision striking down an Arkansas law forbidding U.S. Reps or Senators from Arkansas from serving more than three terms. By extension, state attempts to define “natural born citizen” would be unconstitutional as well.
1Lishell,
I wrote an original piece on this issue back on Saturday, October 25, 2008 (about the time this wonderful blog got started
), entitled, “Background Check All Candidates For Federal Office?“. In it, I proposed that adding additional requirements for candidates would probably be construed as inherently unconstitutional, simply because one would be adding to what the verbiage already stipulates.
Instead, I posited in another posting, “What Happens After the Obama Lawsuits,” that things must be done from the State level on up in order to begin rectifying the electoral system.
It is now turning out to have been a prescient point, what with the current State initiatives beginning to taking place.
-Phil
JeffM,
That is the point. 5 USC and 5 CFR only deal with government agencies like the state department, the treasury department, and the various sub departments therein.
Elected officials are not employees of a government agency, in that they are not, for instance, a GS-12 in the department of defense.
For one thing, the only elected officers in the executive branch are POTUS and VPOTUS. Neither POTUS or VPOTUS could be part of a department. It would be absurd for them to report to SECDEF, for instance, because SECDEF reports to POTUS.
If you honestly don’t understand how that works, I can’t really help much more. You either don’t know, or choose not to, read statute properly, so even if I gave you the cite, you’d still refuse to accept the EO wouldn’t apply.
There are other policy reasons for not vetting elected officials, such as conflict of interest. Suppose that Gore had ordered the FBI to “vet” Bush during the 2000 election, or Bush had done the same thing to Kerry during 2004. The senior administrators in all departments are political appointees whose jobs depend on their boss staying in office. Do you see any potential problems?
1Lishell,
I think I have already qualified Rep. Gohmert as such in both the title and body of this posting. I don’t like “big bold all capital letters” because they give the impression of shouting, and I’m not about shouting.
Thanks for the idea, though.
-Phil
1Lishell,
Part 731 does not mention anything regarding elected officials. Could you quote the subpart you are referring to?
Phil,
Can you please point out (preferably in big bold all capital letters) that Gohmert is a representative and not a senator? It’s amazing how many people in this thread apparently cannot understand the difference between REP and SEN.
Thanks.
Appy,
No one, except for a very fringe minority, thinks that natural born citizen means birthright+. Even Scalia would reject that theory, as there is nothing in the text of the Constitution to suggest otherwise.