Sai v. Obama update – Appellee’s Reply

From Dr. Sai…

UPDATE: AUGUST 16, 2011 — On August 12, 2011, Appellees (Clinton, Gates and Willard) filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a Appellee’s Reply in Further Support of Their Motion for Summary Affirmance. Appellees are claiming that the Appellant (Dr. Keanu Sai) does not understand the political question doctrine. Appellant argues it is in fact the Appellees that do not understand the political question because they are using it to protect a “political decision” made in 1898 to annex the Hawaiian Islands. Appellee cannot use the court to protect a “political decision” that violated the Lili`uokalani assignment and call it a political question. Appellant’s case centers on the violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the tort injuries suffered as a result of the President not faithfully executing this sole-executive agreement. What the President did five years later 1898 to seized the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes during the Spanish-American War cannot be protected as argued by the Appellees, even if it affects the legal status of President Obama who cannot claim to be a natural born Citizen.

In the Appellees’ Motion for Summary Affirmance, they specifically seek protection of the “political decision” made in 1898, which is not a “law,” and try to influence the Appellate Court on the politics of the case. On page 9 of Appellees’ Motion they specifically state, “An ‘unusual need’ exists for adherence to the political decision to annex Hawaii in 1898. In the 113 years that have passed since that decision was made, Hawaii has become a firmly established part of the United States-a vital part of its political, economic, and military workings. Over one million Hawaiians live as United States citizens. Indeed, President Barack Obama’s status as a ‘natural born citizen’ derives from his birth in the State of Hawaii. See U.S. Const. Art. II, §1, cl. 4 (‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President’). Thus, the District Court correctly found an unusual need to adhere to a past political decision, rendering Appellant’s claims nonjusticiable.” This line of argument is not legal, but political, and how does a court of law define an “unusual need.” In other words, the Appellees are saying that Hawaii was kidnapped in 1898, but it was treated like it was adopted for 113 years. Now that the kidnapping has been discovered, the Appellate Court is being asked to close its eyes. Use of the term “unusual” is to say that there was an “unusual need” to kidnap Hawaii. The Appellees have placed the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a precarious position of whether to maintain the U.S. Constitution or violate it.

Fronting the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., is a sculpture of Lady Justice, who is blindfolded and holding a weighing scale. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality. The Appellate Court is a Court of Law and not a Court of Politics.