Via Ballot Access News: Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit Over Obama Eligibility

On November 13, Alan Keyes and his vice-presidential running mate in California, Reverend Wiley Drake, and other members of the American Independent Party, filed a new lawsuit over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

The basis of the claim: Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. You can see the filing here [PDF]. The lawsuit is aimed specifically at California’s electoral votes.

Dave Weigel’s post title on this subject is a classic: Alan Keyes was born on Mars and I have the proof.

Keyes was always bombastic and his views always outside the mainstream, but there was a time that he seemed at least serious within his sphere. However, he went off the rails a while back and seemed to get farther and farther from them each passing year.

4 Comments

1. Cool.

   I don’t expect anything to come of it.

   But it is cool.

   Comment by Captain D — Monday, November 17, 2024 @ 4:18 pm

2. You are to nice to Keyes…Certified nutjob.

   Comment by Talmadge East — Tuesday, November 18, 2024 @ 1:15 am

3. I had a conversation with Keyes once back when Roy Moore was trying to keep the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building in Alabama. He said that the Constitution allowed for any state to declare an official religion. I asked both Judge Moore and Keyes about what would happen if say, Oregon, went Buddhist. Keyes responded that that would be allowed and that Christians should move there and do more evangelism.

   So basically, he believes in the religious Balkanization of America. Wow.

   Was Wiley Drake his running mate? Did I read that article correctly? I’ve met Wiley Drake as well. He is a character. He is very controversial and was the SBC pastor that initiated the boycott on Disney among other things.

   One other thing: Regarding Obama, doesn’t the fact that his mother was an American citizen mean that he is an American citizen as well, no matter where he was born? Little facts like that shouldn’t stop lawsuits though, should they? Am I wrong about that?

   Comment by Alan Cross — Wednesday, November 19, 2024 @ 12:40 am

4. The Constitution didn’t originally define US citizenship with the clarity that it now carries. That happened by act ofcongress in 1790. A law was passed called the Naturalization Act of 1790, which defined what a natural born citizen is. According to the law, a natural born citizen is anyone born on US soil, or born outside of the US to parents who are US citizens.

   Since natural born citizenship isn’t directly defined in the constitution, it is *technically* reasonable to challenge the constitutionality of the Naturalization Act of 1790, but I personally find the idea both ridiculous and distasteful. Most of the Congress in 1790 were members of the Constitutional Convention, and George Washington was president at the time; so I think it’s pretty silly to think that you could get anywhere going up against a definition that was authored by the founding fathers and has stood for 200+ years.

   I’m interested in this only because it’s so weird that it’s cool. I don’t expect Keyes to get anywhere with his scheming, but then again, I don’t expect Obama to do anything with his presidency, either - so the whole thing has sort of a “crane-your-head-at-the-trainwreck” appeal, now that the election has passed. I’m trying to focus on the positive.

   Challenging the president-elect’s citizenship in court - now that may be stupid, but it’s just stupid enough to hold my interest.

   Comment by Captain D — Wednesday, November 19, 2024 @ 2:18 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=14461

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.