Judge Carter ignores Constitutional requirements of office for President

CLINTON APPOINTEE OPENLY ADMITS IN COURT: NOT COMFORTABLE WITH SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

by John Charlton

(Oct. 21, 2009) — He’s a Federal Judge, who has sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America. But Judge Carter says he is uncomfortable with the requirements for holding the office of U.S. President found in Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which reads:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; . . .

Not “eligible”, means not “able to be chosen”; or in other words “has no right to be chosen or hold”.

In truth Barack Hussein Obama —because of his British father and the 4 rulings of the Supreme Court which require both parents be U.S. Citizens at the time of the birth of the child, for that child to be considered a “natural born citizen” in the sense the Founders of the Nation intended — has neither claim, nor right, nor title to the office of President of the United States.  He is in law a tyrant, a dictator, a pretender, and an intruder into the office and  all who obey him are traitors to the republic and criminals.

But Federal Judge David. O Carter is not comfortable with those requirements. He is comfortable with putting his opinion ahead of the Supreme Law of the Land, so it seems, according to Attorney Leo Donofrio.

The stunning admission of treason and incompetence, and feigned ignorance, is made by the Judge on pp. 43-44 of the transcript of hearings in his court for the case Barnett vs. Obama, being heard at the Federal Court House in Santa Anna, California.

Attorney Leo Donofrio, who sued the New Jersey Secretary of State before the national election last year, to remove 3 ineligible candidates from the ballot (Obama, McCain and a Nicaraguan national), has recently taken umbrage with Judge Carter for his outrageous flippancy with the Constitution:

. . . everyone needs to read pages 43-44 of the transcript where Judge Carter indicates that even if Obama were born in Kenya, the Judge would not be comfortable in holding that Obama was not eligible to be POTUS.

Somebody needs to tell this Judge that the law in the US at the time of Obama’s birth stated quite clearly that Obama would not have qualified for US citizenship in 1961 if born in Kenya to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama Sr.  That’s very clear according federal law in 1961.  If he wasn’t a citizen, how could he be a “natural born citizen”?

Judge Carter’s exact words manifest that he does not believe the Courts are bound by the Constitutional requirements of Article II, Section I, paragraph 5.  He discusses the requirement of being born in the U.S.A., in these words, speaking to the counsels for the Defense (pp. 43-44):

One of the interesting things — and we’re getting ahead of ourselves, and I don’t know if we’ll get that far or not — but it’s the citizenship statue at 8 U.S.C. 1401(g), which is “undeniability,” favorable to your argument eventually, especially as termed by Justice Kennedy in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS at 533 U.S. 53, 2001.  Kennedy’s read on that is very interesting; and that is, he basically, throws away, in a sense, location. We’ve got the oddity of one candidate, Senator McCain, actually being born in Panama, but it’s a, quote/unquote, “territory.”

Well, think about that for a moment.  Let’s assume that he would have ben in transit — well, his mother would have been in transit — my apologies — through West Germany and would have had the child prematurely.  How denigrating to say to a woman that, by virtue of service with your husband in the military, that because you were in Panama, you(r son) couldn’t run for the president — but ably serving our military, as Senator McCain’s father had, and a mother who’s following her husband, in a sense in his ilitary duty and patriotism to this country, passing through West Germany, cannot be a candidate.  Very interesting argument.

What Justice Kennedy seems to do, and what I would expect would be a 5-4 Court, is pay a lot of deference to a pregnant mother and wife and say really it doesn’t matter whether it’s Panama or West Germany, that that’s an American mother, an American citizen.  So there’s the oddity there.  And perhaps we get to the merits of that some day, perhaps we don’t.

But that’s a very strong case, quite frankly, in the government’s corner if we ever get to the merits of this.  And I’ve been really questioning, not looking ahead, but wondering how we place a woman who is ably, in a sense, serving this country along with her husband in the position of serving this country and passing through West Germany or some other NATO country during this period of time, having a child outside the United States and (for him) not be able to be a presidential candidate.  It’s a real conundrum and a real insult, I think to the mother —

Then Judge Carter turned to Attorney Taitz and addressed Obama’s circumstances of birth:

with your candidate— whether born, from your perspective, in Kenya or whatever, I think I would have raised the same questions if we ever get to the merits of this; and that is, how can you take an American mother passing into another jurisdiction to see a husband, or for whatever reason, and cast aside the ability to run?

Judge Carter evidently ignores the U.S. Nationality Act in force at the time; which precluded the passing on of citizenship by a U.S. citizen who was married to a foreigner and yet not resident in the U.S.A.  for 5 years after their 14th birthday.  Nor is the U.S. Code, cited above by Judge Carter, applicable, since only the wives of military personell are included. Unless the Judge is implying that Obama is a WAIF adoptee, whose father was a U.S. Military, and whose mother gave birth oversees. But even then, its not a question of being a natural born citizen, as the Supreme Court has used this definition.

In Carter’s world, reality is not what you recognize, it’s what the Courts & Congress determine

However, Judge Carter has an amazing capacity to play games with the law.  While ignoring the usurpation of Obama, he castigates military personal (p. 25 of transcript) for not accepting his orders, saying they took an oath to obey him!

This is nothing short of the same principle of tyranny, contained in Judge Clay D. Land’s sanction order, namely that military are bound to serve an self-admitted usurper.  In Judge Carter’s words, he expresses it with more gentility:

It’s troubling. It’s troubling, I would think, to this Court and any Court to have the specter of what I believe is probably the most patriot(ic) group of individuals in our country, those who serve in the military, to decide to serve by virtue of who the President is or is not.  And until either resolved by Congress or the Courts or never resolved, that’s the Commander-in-chief.

It’s difficult because I think anybody who served in the military, if I recall correctly, took an oath to serve the Constitution and to serve the United States.  Some may have served, as myself, under President Johnson in conflict and also under President Nixon, and I can never recall questioning who the President was. I only had one country, and I think most people in the military believe that.

To compare 2 legitimate Presidents’ political decisions or personal crimes to the usurpation of the office of president by Obama, is willful ignorance.  One wonders what Carter thinks the Military ought to do, if, hypothetically the office holder of the presidency self-admitted to not being eligible in some other manner, for the Presidency?  Does American obedience, mean the blind obedience of the Wafen SS ?  Evidently Judge Carter and Judge Land think so.

Evidently Judge Carter has not only decided to play “let’s pretend we’re living in another world”, but has forgotten the oath taken by Federal Judges, according to the United States Code, 28 U.S.C. 453:

§ 453. Oaths of justices and judges

(Release date: 2003-05-15)

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:  “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

Echoing the final words of that oath, the question of the day is:  “Judge Carter, who is your God?”