Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

Over the past year, both before and since the elections, there have been a number of court cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility.  Most of the cases have been dismissed by judges for reasons that are not truly legitimate, but many feel they were dismissed to avoid the political ramifications.

Just last week I wrote about a case that was filed in Florida, that not only challenged Obama’s eligibility, but stated that he was a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States.  That case has yet to be heard.

Yet another case filed in Alabama may present one of the best chances of producing a ruling against Obama.  In this case, Hugh McInnish and others have filed suit against Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman for failure to properly verify the eligibility of Barack Obama.  The case points out that the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s eligibility and that Chapman failed to accurately verify Obama’s eligibility.

The attorney handling this case is the same attorney handling the case in Florida. Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and the Klayman Law Firm in Washington, will hopefully be arguing this case before the Alabama State Supreme Court. The reason the case is going to the state Supreme Court is that a previous judge dismissed the case. In that case the state argued:

“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court… Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should not’ certify the candidate.”

Klayman argues that this admission of the state justifies the actions taken by his clients. They believe that there is sufficient evidence presented by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department Cold Case Posse to indicate that the long form birth certificate presented by the White House on behalf of Obama is in fact a forgery and that its presentation to the people of the United States constitutes fraud. Klayman argues:

“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent.”

“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr. Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary.”

What raises hopes for the success of this case lies with the members of the Alabama state Supreme Court. In an earlier hearing on the same argument the high court denied the petition by McInnish to require that Obama produce an original copy of his birth certificate. When Alabama’s High Court denied that earlier petition Justice Tom Parker filed an unpublished concurrence in the case stating that the charges of forgery were a legitimate concern.

In addition to Justice Parker, Klayman is counting on newly elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. Chief Justice Moore is a strong advocate of constitutional law rather than ruling on the prevailing politics of the time. When Moore won re-election to the state Supreme Court he vowed that he will do his utmost to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the state of Alabama.

In speaking on constitutional law, Moore said that humans will misbehave when they are not constrained by law and that the Constitution was set up with the goal to restraining human excesses. He went on to describe his view of constitutional law as:

“The whole basis of the Constitution is the restraint strength of human power. The only way you can do that is acknowledged that morality and law does come from God. No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power. The members of the legislature don’t and neither does the Supreme Court. The Constitution is the rule of law and my job is to uphold the rule of law.”

Klayman is hoping that the skepticism of Justice Parker and the staunch stand for constitutional law by Chief Justice Moore will be enough to prove their case that Barack Hussein Obama has not provided the proper legal documentation to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for president of the United States as set by the Constitution. This case above all others that I have seen in the past year stands the best chance of winning.