drkatesview

©2012 drkate

Abdul Karim Hassan is a naturalized citizen who wishes to run for the Presidency of the United States. This even though the Constitution says “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Hassan v Scott Gessler,  Colorado SoS

Business Insider reported on September 5, 2012, Abdul Karim Hassan’s series of lawsuits claiming his right to run for the Presidency have been denied in the Second, Third, and now Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  A similar ruling was issued September 28, 2012 for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The significance of these rulings cannot be underestimated as they affirm that the natural born citizen clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution has not been trumped, abrogated, or implicitly repealed by the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment nor the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  These arguments are the same ones used by Obama’s lawyers in fending off the legitimate challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy and presidency; by the secretaries of state to refute ballot challenges, and by the media, pundits, Congress and the academics to cover up the usurpation of the presidency by Obama/Soetoro.  Of course, the corrupt SCOTUS hears nothing, sees nothing, and says nothing.

Obama and his supporters, the Congressional eligibility deniers, and the media have been soundly defeated and Obama is still ineligible to hold or run for the office he seeks.  What is more interesting is that the legal rulings lend support to the charges of misprision of felony that all members of Congress, and all the secretaries of state face in contributing to the overthrow of the White House.

This article briefly reviews the history of this case and its rulings.

The FEC Filing 

Presidential Candidate Abdul Hassan ruled ineligible as he is not a natural born citizen

Hassan, a Guyana-born naturalized American citizen, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to run for the presidency.  Astoundingly, the FEC ruled in September 2011 that Hassan could file papers and raise money to run for president of the United States:

But the agency also told the prospective candidate, Abdul Hassan, that his campaign may not receive federal matching funds because he was not born in America. However, the agency’s decision stopped short of addressing the constitutional issue of whether someone born outside the United States can be president.

Importantly, the FEC made clear that it was outside it’s jurisdiction to decide the constitutional merits of Mr. Hassan’s candidacy, saying that vetting was up to the States:

“This does not mean that he can go and say ‘look the FEC has said that I am a candidate, give me money, I’m official,’” said Republican Commissioner Donald McGahn. “That is not what we do here; we don’t certify you as a candidate. That’s what the states do.” (emphasis added)

Democratic FEC Commissioners had ‘trepidation’ in issuing this unanimous opinion because of how it might be perceived.  They attempted to qualify and explain their rationale:

“By saying that it is okay — it does give the impression that we don’t see a problem,” said Democratic Commissioner Steven Walther. “I think that we really need to be cognizant of how this could be misconstrued.”

To address this problem, one of the final sections added to approved opinion states:

“Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Commission expresses no opinion on Mr. Hassan’s potential liability arising out of his proposed activities under any other Federal or State law, including any laws concerning fraudulent misrepresentation. Any such issues are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

“For us this is really all about what we are empowered to decide and what we are not empowered to decide,” said Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. “Nobody is saying that it is fine and nobody is saying it’s okay for this guy to be going out and raising funds.’”

Ballot Access Denied in Colorado, New Hampshire

Hassan then proceeded to set up a website and attempted to get on the ballot in New Hampshire and Colorado.  When denied access by both Secretaries of State of each state, he sued.  He has filed five lawsuits which argued that:

… the Constitution’s natural-born-citizen requirement is a vestige of our less noble past, before we decided that discrimination based on national origin is a grievous wrong. (He points in his briefs to Dred Scott v. Sandford.)The lawsuits say the Constitution’s admonition that “[n]o person  except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Hassan’s lawsuits have already been denied in the First and Second U.S. court of appeals. And the Tenth Circuit rounded out the trio on Tuesday when it too shut down Hassan’s case.

Hassan initiated other lawsuits aimed at the natural born citizen requirement based on these assumptions, and filed against the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act  (26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013) which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties after the FEC issued an advisory opinion that Hassan did not qualify for any matching funding because he was not a natural born citizen.  Hassan argues that the Presidential Campaign Fund Act is:

(1) unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been“trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now this is where it gets interesting.  The FEC as defendant submitted a motion to dismiss the case based on the same premises that have been used to try to defeat challenges to Obama’s eligibility.  That is,

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (emphasis added)

The FEC also argued that Defendant argued that this Court should deny Plaintiff’s Application because

the Complaint fails to present an Article III case or controversy, and alternatively, because it does not present a substantial constitutional question. (emphasis added)

The government moved to dismiss the case–using the same arguments it has used to dismiss other cases against Obama–(1) failure to present a claim upon which relief can be granted, (2) lack of jurisdiction, (3) failing to present an Article III case or controversy, and (4) failure to present a substantial constitutional question.

The one argument missing from the government’s defense?  STANDING.

American Jurisprudence and Constitutional Legal Thinking

The DC circuit court dismissed Abdul Hassan’s case. The judge’s ruling denying Abdul Hassans suit against the FEC is illustrative for the process the Judge followed in making its conclusions.  As opposed to ducking jurisdiction and ducking its Article III responsibility to hear cases involving constitutional questions, the court determined:

Because subject matter jurisdiction focuses on the court’s power to hear the claim, however, the court must give the plaintiff’s factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than would be required for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Thus, to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a claim, the court may consider materials outside the pleadings where necessary to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992). (emphasis added)

Regarding FRCP Rule 12 (b), the court determined:

A court need not, however, “accept inferences drawn by plaintiffs if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Nor must the court accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Id. In addition,“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the Court actually took on the issue, was legally entitled to review additional information, and ruled it did not have to accept inferences or ‘legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations’.  Every one of the Obama challenge cases was thrown out first, on standing, and second, using the measly excuses such as failure to present a case, lack of Article III jurisdiction, or the ‘political question’.

Article II Still Stands

I hope everyone who has been involved in the eligibility movement can appreciate the significance of these rulings for the Constitution, the requirements of the Presidency, and all the work we have accomplished over the last several years.  It is critical to inform your friends who are skeptical of the ‘birthers’ or disappointed in the perceived failure of the 100+ cases challenging Obama that several courts have affirmed the natural born citizen requirement of the presidency–that it still stands, and that we are right and always have been on this issue.

Significantly the FEC believes the States are responsible for the determination of eligibility, just as the Article II Superpac, the Obama Ballot Challenge, the extensive legal work of many scholars, and many,  many others have indicated.  The 2009 Continental Congress recommended vetting laws at the state level were required, and the Article II Superpac will continue its efforts after this election and into 2013 to ensure a vetting process is in place at multiple levels, to make sure the usurpation of the White House by an unknown, unvetted foreign national never happens again.

Please donate to the Article II Superpac to ensure its efforts continue through and beyond the 2012 election.  The national security of our Nation is at stake.