Roy Moore making eligibility backers desperate?

by: Drew Zahn 

The Democratic Party has jumped into a Barack Obama eligibility case before Judge Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court, filing an uninvited brief that even quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in an effort to see the case dismissed.
As WND reported, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish have filed a case seeking to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now being appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, where Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”
Speculation abounds online that Alabama Democrats have jumped into the case out of concern Moore may not be so quick as other judges to dismiss challenges to Obama’s eligibility.
In a brief of amicus curiae filed last week, the Alabama Democratic Party insists the court is required to dismiss the case.
“Stated simply,” the brief reads, “there is absolutely nothing any Alabama court can do to change the reality of President Obama’s election to a second term in office. … No Alabama court has the authority to delve into the legality, conduct or results of that election.”
The brief is filled with condemning language, calling the McInnish-Goode case a “baseless attack,” Obama the “object of [their] scorn” and their intent “a jaundiced and jaded political agenda.”
Futhermore, the Democratic Party insists, “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”

The document scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel – not widely recognized as a constitutional expert – to make its case: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”
Yet at least two of the judges sitting on Alabama’s Supreme Court have considered that where all the “birthers” have seen smoke, there may be a fire.
In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
More recently, when a majority of the state’s high court denied a 2012 petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

Parker wrote, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
The “certain documentation” Parker refers to is the findings of an investigation conducted by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.
In his concurrence, Parker describes McInnish’s petition as follows: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.’”
Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents, but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court, suggesting the Supreme Court may have some opportunity for action.