OPPOSITION TO OBAMA MOTION TO DISMISS BIRTH CERTIFICATE CASE

-Snip-


PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS, to be supplemented by filing Plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Complaint on or before October 2, 2009

Come now the Plaintiffs with this their Preliminary

Response toDefendants’ September 4, 2009, Document 56

Motion to Dismiss (with reservation of rights to Respond

further by filing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

on or before Friday, October 2, 2009).

POLITICAL RELATIVITY vs. CONSTITUTIONAL ABSOLUTES: IS THE
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE VIABLE AS A MEANS TO
EVADECOMPLIANCE WITH UNVARIABLE STANDARDS?


Fundamentally, this case comes down to a single

bifurcated question question: (1A) does the constitution

mean what it says when it lays down absolute parameters,

such as the age and citizenship qualifications to be

President, and (1B) to whom does the investigation and

enforcement of this constitutional provision: to the

Congress, the People, or can the President get by merely

asserting his qualifications without presenting evidence

which would be competent as Summary Judgment

(admissible) evidence under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure? The Plaintiffs have brought their

complaint as a matter of first impression to ask this

Court to determine, find, hold, and rule that the

investigation and enforcement of this right belongs to

the people, even members of a discrete and insular

minority of the people, even if this group lacks

majoritarian political power. Plaintiffs respond to the

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ask this Court to

rule, pursuant to the First and Ninth Amendments that

they may sue to enforce constitutional absolutes, such

as the constitutional requirements for President of the

United States. Plaintiffs assert an inalienable,

reserved right to sue for Constitutional conformity in

this case even though they concede that the Defendants

have shown that primary, first line actions could and

should have been taken by members of Congress or the

Electoral College, pursuant to the Twelfth and

Twentieth Amendments for instance. Case

8:09cv00082DOCAN,Document 56, Filed 09/04/2009, Page 2o

of 32: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll. 114. Of

course, what Congress must do in the case of obvious

electoral deadlocks or recognized and admitted problems

with qualification for office is not at all the point

raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint and evidence.

Plaintiffs’complaint and evidence allege and confirm

that the Presidency in 2008 was taken by fraud, and not

even by fraud in the counting of votes, but by fraud in

the traditional common law sense of a material

misrepresentation of an important fact upon which

Plaintiffs could be reasonably expected to rely to their

detriment, and to the detriment of constitutional

government. The Constitution’s textual commitment of

this responsibility is a responsibility that Congress

has embraced. Both the House and the Sentate have

standing committees with jurisdiction to decide

questions relating to Presidential elections. Idem:

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where

Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or

prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be

that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress

creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently,

Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule,

and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony

silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party

sitting as President of the Senate during the

certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant

to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy

the people that the President has met the Constitutional

qualifications for office. Idem: Motion to Dismiss at 1314.

FULL TEXT

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20030961/KEYES-v-OBAMA-69-OPPOSITION-to-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUPPORT-OF-MOTION-56-filed-by-Plaintiff-Pamela CLICK HERE