Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

Reasons for Trump removal are different than "birther" spurious claims

   Yesterday’s blog outlined how the next few blogs will examine assertions that litigation to challenge the legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency is the same as “birther” litigation challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama’s Presidency.
   Are there similarities between Trump removal litigation and “birther” cases? 
   As stated yesterday, a first step will be to compare: (a) reasons cited by “birthers” to (b) reasons presented by advocates for Trump removal
   The “birthers” argued President Obama was ineligible to be President because he was not a natural-born U.S. citizen as required by Const. Art. II, sec. 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President;...”
   Several facts made Barack Obabam’s candidacy ripe for such claims. His father was Kenyan. After his parents divorced in 1964, his mother in 1967 married Lolo Suetoro, a student at the University of Hawai’i who was Indonesian.  The couple, and Barack moved to Indonesia. Barack attended elementary school there. When he was ten years old, he returned to Hawai’i to live with his maternal grandparents.
   Over half of the claims, it appears, were based on an absence, or (later) alleged forgery of an important document: Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
   Most of the cases that challenged the Legitimacy of President Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office were brought by the same lawyer—not a reason “cited” by birthers, but one aspect of the “birther” litigation to consider.
   Finally, a prominent “birther” was Trump.
   Trump removal litigation alleges several grounds: (a) Trump and members of his campaign committed collusion with a hostile foreign power to obtain by illegal means a margin of victory in the Electoral College; (b) Russian interference in the 2016 elections was a cyber invasion and constituted violation of Art. IV, sec. 4 of the Constitution, the Invasion Clause; and, c) To the extent Trump obtained office through Russian assistance or acts of interference, knew that he received such assistance, and acted to help or “adhere” to Russia, he obtained office via treason.
   Three cases were filed with the United States Court of Appeals (1st, 9th and 10th Circuits) and one (1) case was filed with the United States Supreme Court and alleged violation of the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, also part of Art. IV, sec. 4. All of those cases were pro se—brought by non-lawyers. In the case before the Supreme Court, I filed a motion for appointment of a Special Master, but after a Petition for Writ of Mandamus had been filed. Later I filed, on behalf of 12 voters, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Appointment of Special Master,  case, Bailey, et al v United States, et al, docket 16-1464.
   The cases presented multiple reasons why Trump’s presidency is illegitimate.
   The cases rely upon matters brought to light since the election, as well as admissions of named parties.
   Finally, a name prominent in questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election and a person who has acknowledged Russia attempted to influence the outcome: Trump.
   The differences between “birthers” and advocates of Trump removal are significant.
   Tomorrow we shall explore whether the facts support assertions that “birther” litigation is the same as litigation for Trump removal.

Views: 83


You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

My Great Web page