Supreme Court Rules On Obama’s Birth Certificate in Landmark Decision

AUTHOR

April 13, 2014 9:00am PST

In yet another off putting victory for the current tyrant in office, the Alabama Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of Obama.  Saying that the Alabama Secretary of State has no jurisdiction to vet presidential candidate’s eligibility, any and all birther arguments have effectively been thrown out.

In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court upheld its previous decision to dismiss a 2012 lawsuit demanding that the state fully certify a candidates birth certificate before placing them on the ballot.

(See also: GOP Candidate Berated By The Left Over Birther Comments He Made 4 Years Ago)

One of the seven that voted to uphold the court’s decision however took to explaining their ruling, expressing that the position of Alabama’s Secretary of State is, “a non-judicial office without subpoena power or investigative authority or the personnel necessary to undertake a duty to investigate a non-resident candidate’s qualifications, even if such a duty could properly be implied.”

Not everyone feels that way however as one of the two dissenters, Chief Justice Roy Moore, has come forward to argue that the state of Alabama should have mandated their Secretary of State to check past candidates and to make sure it is done in the future. Further expressing his frustration, Moore made it clear that if any president has ever been worthy of deeper investigation, it’s Obama.

Moore further stated that the Secretary of State, “has an affirmative legal duty to recognize and support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land.”  Offering his dissatisfaction to the public, Moore explained how he wished such an unbiased investigation to be launched against Obama, but conveyed the hope that it be done with all potential and future candidates.

(See also: Obama: ‘My Birth Certificate Is Up On A Website Somewhere’)

Proving further instances in which officials have used their authority to disqualify candidates based on Constitutional precedent he noted, “These cases address situations in which allegedly ineligible presidential candidates have sought judicial relief from the decisions of state election officials excluding them from the ballot because they were underage.”

Hoping to avoid any such occurrences later on, he shared his desire for, “the Secretary of State to investigate for ineligibility candidates she has already certified for the presidential-election ballot and to screen all such candidates for eligibility in the future.”

He then concluded by saying that, “logically the Secretary of State, being the chief elections official of the state, should be vested with such a duty,” but admitted there isn’t much legal precedent to make such an assertion.

(See also: VIDEO: Jay Leno Rips Into Obama With “Birther” Remark)

Although the case has been ruled against time and time again, someone of Bolin’s stature, being on the side that he is, certainly holds grout with those who adamantly believe in the birther theory. Turning his sites on Obama, he went on to express, “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”

So what do you guys think – did Obama luck out here?  Should individual states have the right to vet anyone before placing them on the ballot? Let us know in a comment below.

comments

You must login in order to leave a comment.