Recently I told you about Liberty Legal Foundation’s contributions to the Supreme Court’s US v. AZ and Obamacare rulings. This week I want to remind you about another frustrating victory.
This year Liberty Legal Foundation became the only organization to present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to rule on the substantive definition of “natural born citizen.” Literally hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by individuals and organizations attempting to challenge Obama’s qualifications to serve as President. Until LLF got involved, none of those lawsuits reached the Supreme Court on the substantive question: What is a “natural born citizen” as that term is defined in Article II of the Constitution? Prior to our Welden v. Obama case, every other eligibility lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court, and every one since, presented the Court with procedural questions. Those procedural questions were fairly routine, and had little or nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility. LLF’s case was different.
Liberty Legal Foundation represented a Georgia resident through every level of Georgia’s state courts, including the Georgia Supreme Court. Then we took this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. What made this case unique was the fact that the first court to hear our case, the lowest court in Georgia, ruled on the substance of the matter. Because of LLF’s briefs, that Georgia court denied Obama’s motion to dismiss on various procedural issues. Unfortunately that Georgia court then decided that “natural born citizen,” under Article II, means any person born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
While the Georgia court’s ruling was completely wrong, the fact that it ruled on the actual issue was a huge victory. Even with a completely incorrect ruling, the fact that the ruling addressed the definition of “natural born citizen” meant that LLF could appeal the actual issue that we wanted resolved. This was the first time this had happened anywhere in America, despite hundreds of attempts by other organizations.
So we sent a petition to review this definition to the US Supreme Court. Last October the Supreme Court refused to accept our case. They had an opportunity to definitively answer a question that had spawned hundreds of cases, and continues to spawn new cases almost every day. Yet they said that it wasn’t worth their attention.
I believe that this refusal to accept our case represents an acknowledgment that the Court didn’t want to accept a case when they knew their ruling would either unseat a President, or remove any remaining belief that the Court follows its own precedent. You see, the Georgia court’s ruling is a joke. It completely ignored clear Supreme Court precedent. It also relied completely upon an Indiana state court ruling, instead of following U.S. Supreme Court precedent. BTW: the Indiana court ruling was so flawed as to be laughable.
Please understand what I am telling you: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to uphold the Constitution for political reasons. It’s that simple. If you still hesitate to believe me, consider this: earlier in 2012 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas admitted to reporters that the Court was “avoiding” the eligibility question.
So, why do I consider our Georgia eligibility case to be a victory? Because, the only thing more tragic than courts refusing to enforce the law, is a country that refuses to recognize this fact. For decades our judicial branch has become more and more corrupt. LLF’s eligibility lawsuits have proven that point beyond any doubt. While we are devastated at the court’s refusal to do their duty, we are proud of the fact that our work gave every level of the judicial branch an opportunity to do the right thing. Because of your support and LLF’s efforts, the Supreme Court cannot claim ignorance. The judicial branch can’t claim that it wasn’t presented with the right argument. Individual judges’ failure to do their duty falls squarely on their shoulders.
We hoped to find a righteous person wearing a judge’s robe. We are yet to find one.