Obama lawsuit against Arizona not based on law

Obama’s lawsuit against AZ is not based on law

Don Hank

As a legal/technical translator, I have read and translated my share of legal briefs.

The lawsuit brought by the Obama administration against AZ is by far the lamest, most juvenile brief I have read in my nearly 40 years of exposure to such texts. The main reason for this is that, in all of the lawsuits I have read heretofore, there is a citation of law. Here there are no laws cited at all and also no case law. It fails in fact to rise to the level of a legal brief. The fact that it was even accepted by the Supreme Court is an ominous sign for our country.

Text sample [my comments in brackets]:

“It [the AZ law] will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens [How will it conflict with federal law if it agrees with it? No legal precepts or laws specified]. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution [First, what protections are legally available for “an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution”? Would an alien have a well founded fear of persecution if he was acting within the law? Further, since the AZ law is based on federal law, then it would have to be the federal law that is ignoring humanitarian concerns. No laws specified] or who has been the victim of a natural disaster [If it is legal to enter the US without papers on the grounds of a natural disaster, then AZ law does not apply because it is based on US law. If it is illegal to enter the US without papers in case of a natural disaster, then the courts must base their decision on the law as written, not on controversial opinion as to what constitutes a hardship case and whether humanitarian concerns override the law in such a case. Besides, again, the federal law is the basis for this AZ law, so it is not fair to single out AZ as one of many states that expect federal immigration law to be obeyed within its boundaries or to punish the state for having such reasonable expectations]. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries [Is this diplomatic relationship not based on law? If not, on what is it based? If something other than law, then this is not a matter for the courts to decide, because they are charged only with evaluating the legal aspects of any case or law, not the diplomatic aspects].”

 If the Supreme Court sides with Obama in this case, then we can no longer in any way expect our legal system to base any decision on the law as written. Legal decisions then become a matter of personal philosophy of the judges. For example, the president could demand in a lawsuit that all auto makers and sellers cease and desist from their activity on the grounds that some cars have fatal accidents.

The courts have always sided with the States in matters of immigration of this kind, so a departure from case law would also open up a new era of total randomness in court decisions. No legal system can stand for long under such circumstances.

Further reading: 


Self-censorship of “conservative” media — Be afraid!

The big scandal here is that no one in the media, whether “conservative” or liberal, will talk about the lawsuit against Obama. I recall recently that a caller to the Glenn Beck radio program brought this up. Immediately, Glenn told her this issue was nothing in comparison to so many other really important issues, and that there is no need to discuss it.

So much for the “free” conservative media. Rush is silent on this issue, and so is Hannity. And even “conservative” news sites on the web are ignoring it.

So what if this is not the “opportune” time to mention it? So what if it puts Hillary in a position to regain her candidacy? So what if liberals don’t want you to know?

This silence on the issue is proof that the press, whether “conservative” (I don’t think it is) or liberal, is in some way operating in someone’s interests, and that someone is not you!

Think about it: why is it that a Brazilian Newspaper (Diário do Comércio) is carrying news that is, for all intents and purposes, censored in the US?

I hope to be able to comment further on the self-censorship and the recent distortions in the “conservative” media. (Have you noticed how no one is protesting the bailout? They limit themselves to a discussion of who gets what of your money. Sickening!)

Donald Hank


Obama runs away from a lawsuit


Olavo de Carvalho


Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), Sept. 26th 2008


            September 24 was the deadline for Barack Obama to file a response to the lawsuit, initiated by Democratic lawyer Philip Berg, which charges Obama of not fulfilling the constitutional requirements to be elected president, as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Obama did not actually respond: he introduced a motion for dismissal, a typical delaying maneuver that makes the defendant look even more suspect.

            A motion for dismissal consists in alleging that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to justify the continuation of the suit. That Obama’s lawyers would use this maneuver is a curious sample of the revolutionary inversion of judicial logic. Berg’s central argument is that Obama has not presented a printed birth certificate. It is the duty of the candidate to prove that he is a natural born American citizen, not the duty of the plaintiff to prove that he is not. The hard fact that the document has never came to light is enough for the suit to go forward, as there is not a single piece of evidence attesting that Obama has legal citizenship. But to this undeniable assertion, Berg has added some strong evidence that: (1) the electronic copy of the birth certificate exhibited by Obama’s campaign is false; (2) Obama was born in Kenya. By challenging the insufficiency of these supplemental arguments, Obama’s lawyers are trying to dodge responding the central point: where is the paper version of the certificate?  If Obama had one, it would be enough to present it and he would be acquitted on the spot. What his lawyers have done suggests that he has no American birth certificate whatsoever.

            In return, they have gained time, but at the expense of sowing the seed of a constitutional crisis that will fatally blow up sooner or later. If the suit is resolved only after the election – and if Obama is elected – instead of simply nullifying a candidacy the United States will find itself in the contingency of having to topple a president, automatically raising the ire of his devotees. Or else, the United States will have to sacrifice its Constitution and laws on the altar of a grotesque pseudo-religion, artificial to the utmost, in which millions of idiots kneel down before an improvised arriviste without even bothering to ask where  he came from.  Both hypotheses are frightening, and if the motion for dismissal is accepted by the court, there will be no third one any more.

            More and more I convince myself that all this, form the beginning, was in the calculations of the creators of the Obama myth. More that just electing a president, they wished to implode a nation.

 P. S. – All the documents in the lawsuit are in Phillip Berg’s site www.obamacrimes.com. If you have difficulties accessing it, do not be surprised: it has received over 15 million visitors in the last few days and there has been a bit of a traffic jam.



Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005. He now lives in the U. S. as a correspondent for Braziian newspapers. Website: www.olavodecarvalho.org.