Government attorneys, your tax dollars, are being used to defend Soetoro Obama's case against Orly Taitz and her plaintiffs. I am not able to predict the outcome, since the case is so heavily politicized, but the government's case seems weak. Their first defense is that after the election any objections are moot because they should have been dealt with already under the Constitution, by the presidential Electors, and is up to the Legislative branch. None of this makes any common sense whatsoever. It assumes everyone responsibly performed their duties. The lawsuit filed seeks a redress of a wrong. The government has no case. Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military and the commander-in-chief does not qualify as president under the Constitution. I would think that injury or death following orders of an unqualified commander would constitute genuine injury but this is post-Obama America after all and common sense does not predominate. Alan Keyes is a three-time presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008 and Gail Lightfoot, was a vice presidential candidate in 2008. The government's bases their position on the opportunity to win. The argument is that is that they could not win so they are not injured. They may lose on popularity but I do not believe that weakens their legal argument one iota. The less popular candidates qualified under the Constitution which constitutes genuine injury by an unexamined, though popular, candidate. What I find quite interesting is the government’s position is that any person lacks standing to challenge a potential usurper to the POTUS under Article II, Section 1 Clause 5 even though he is not legitimate under the Constitution. If an election took place by fraud the Court should entertain an interest. Winning by fraud does not make it legitimate.
The case will be heard tomorrow in Santa Ana, California.
