Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
KY - House v Obama Motion to Dismiss

KY - House v Obama Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 472|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Sep 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

12/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 Page 1 of 4COMMONWEALTH of KENTUCKYFRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
DIV II12-CI-1048L. TODD HOUSE PLAINTIFFv. MOTION to DISMISS
 
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al DEFENDANTSNOTICENotice is hereby given that the Defendant, Barack HusseinObama, will come before the Court, make the following motion,and tender the attached order on Monday September 24, 2012 at9:00 AM or as soon thereafter can be heard by this Court on itsregular motion hour.MOTIONComes now the Defendant, Barack Hussein Obama, and movesthe Court to dismiss this action based on grounds related tosubject matter jurisdiction. Cr 12.02(a).
Plaintiff’s
complaint, even if valid, presents a Federal question and/or ispreempted by Federal Law.ARGUMENT
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant Barack Hussein
Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is noteligible to be President of the United States.The Office of President is created by the United StatesConstitution, Article II. The U.S. Code has entire chapterdedicated to the Office of President. 3 USC et seq. The
 
 Page 2 of 4questions of vacancy of said office, those entitled to hold it,secession of terms, election of electors are addressed inConstitutional Amendments XII and XX. In short, there is anabundance of Federal Law on the highest Federal Office.Defendant Obama asserts that Federal law occupies the entirefield of law related to the Presidency.The doctrine of federal preemption is derived from thesupremacy clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI.McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, (1819). A state law thatconflicts with federal law is without effect. The historicpolice powers of the state are not preempted in the absence of"the clear and manifest purpose of Congress" to do so. Rice v.Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, (1947). The United StatesSupreme Court has stated that it is reluctant to interpret afederal statute in such a way as to find preemption of subjectstraditionally governed by state law. CSX Transportation v.Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387(1993). Determination of whether a federal statute preempts astate cause of action depends on the purpose of Congress inenacting the federal statute. Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435U.S. 497, (1978).The congressional purpose to preempt a state remedy may bedetermined in either of two ways. The first is whether thepreemption is found in the express language of the statute,
 
 Page 3 of 4Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, (1992). Thesecond is to find preemption implied from the structure andpurpose of the statute. Implied preemption occurs when the statelaw actually conflicts with federal law or where the federal lawso thoroughly occupies the legislative field that it may bereasonably inferred that Congress left no room for the state tosupplement it.To the extent Kentucky law purports to assume anyjurisdiction over the Presidency, who may seek said office,qualifications thereof, said law would be preempted.FEDERAL QUESTIONJurisdiction, if proper in any court (which Defendant doesnot so concede), is proper in Federal Court as this matterinvolves a Federal Question.28 USC 1331- Federal QuestionThe district courts shall have original jurisdictionof all civil actions arising under the
Constitution
,
laws
, or treaties
of the United States
.(emphasis added)
As Plaintiff’s claims directly rise out of the
laws
(3 USCet seq) and (Federal)
Constitution
(Article II, Amendment XII,and Amendment XX) they necessarily present a Federal Question.The only claims which arise allegedly under the law of the
Commonwealth are those related to Obama’s bona fide’s (KRS
118.176). Even within those allegations related to the bona

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->