Posted on 12/08/2008 12:31:52 PM PST by Victory111
Once again, the United States Supreme Court has decided that Article II – Section I of the Constitution, which establishes very specific eligibility requirements for anyone seeking the office of President, has no meaning in 2008. As reported by the Washington Post, the Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case. They forgot to say, again…
As the Post points out, “The Supreme Court this morning unceremoniously declined to hear an emergency appeal from a man who claimed President-elect Barack Obama is not qualified for the presidency because he is not a “natural-born” citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...
Perhaps, instead, the Supreme Court wasn’t willing to ignore the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution.
Could it just be that the case they turned away is weak? I thoght so, he said McCain and Obama weren’t elegible.
There are 19 more to go so far, a new one was filed today, there is one scheduled for the 12th, that’s 4 days.
Sometimes to break the ice it takes lots of little rocks instead of just dropping one big one.
What a crazy country, where a few random bloggers have a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution than the four conservative, Strict Constructionist members of the SCOTUS.
What were Reagan, Bush I and Bush II thinking when they appointed Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alto to the SCOTUS? /sarcasm
No, the Supreme Court *did not* decline to hear the case. They denied a stay. Two totally different things, although no one seems to get the distinction.
Can you articulate the distinction in plain language for us? Thanks.
It won’t change the fact that this controversy is NOT going away. In fact, it is just starting to get a decent head of steam.
BO will be sworn in, but the cloud over his presidency will just grow and grow. Did the abortion issue go away because some Supremes ruled in Roe v Wade? Hell no. So those who say this issue is going away now because the Supremes turned down this defendant’s stay, do not understand history.
The Donofrio case was important because it was among the first and brought the issue into the consciousness of a lot of people who hadn't considered the issues before. I'm not an optimist, but I feel that perhaps the Court knew that there were cases out there already that could stand up better than this one, and decided to wait for those.
If the usurper is proven Constitutionally unqualified, we will want a strong case, because it will have to stand up to the screaming banshees of the dim party and the test of history.
The Supremes are political in case anyone had doubts. Hearing the case probably would have found legitimacy in Donofrio’s law suit.
Then what? Turmoil in America as we have never seen; riots, rampaging, calling out the National Guard; killing, burning, busted windows on a national scale similar to the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
The MSM and lefties would have charged “another stolen election by the Supremes.” Whoever became President would not have been able to govern with all of the law suits and recalcitrant Congressmen with their endless hearings. Financial turmoil even worse than now; plunging stock markets; worldwide dismay over America’s “silly Constitutional technicalities.
I’m not saying it is right, I’m saying the Supremes may have weighed the consequences and furthermore, we are violating the Constitution all the time and as I have said, right now by investing tax dollars in private companies, buying up home mortgages; allowing some companies to fail and bailing out others.
There is nothing new here: Congress and the Presidents have violated the Constitution since Herbert Hoover left office. What are the consequencies of adhering to one but ignoring all the others?
It appears to me, after looking at the docket on the SCOTUS website, that all SCOTUS did was deny a request, from Donofrio, to stay the proceedings while he got his paperwork in order to file a writ of certiorari to SCOTUS.
A request for a writ of certiorari = the official brief one files with SCOTUS when they want them to consider the case.
When a court denies a stay, they are leaving the previous ruling intact & effective as of the time of the ruling. Denying or granting a stay can be done for a variety of reasons & in no way should it be assumed that SCOTUS did much more than a cursory review of the merits of the case (if that) before denying the stay.
In any event, SCOTUS *did not* rule on the merits of the case. The only way that will happen is if they grant the writ of cert, hold oral argument, then rule on the case.
What happened in this case is a technical setback but should not be read as SCOTUS agreeing or not agreeing with the merits of the case.
I do, however, believe SCOTUS will not eventually grant writs of cert in any of these cases. If/when that happens, then everyone can bitch & moan.
But until then - whether they realize it or not - it appears people are getting worked up about the denial of a request to stay the lower court's order.
Does JB Williams know what this case was about?
It didn't have anything to do with FactCheck, or a birth certificate.
It's one thing to disagree with the Court's denial, but at least read the case and know what it was they denied.
I do not pretend to know the eventual outcome of any or all of the cases either arriving at the SCOTUS or on their way there, but I have noticed the incredible amount of dancing in the aisles, "I-told-you-so"s, and negative comments aimed at those who are ferverently in favor of Obama proving his Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President.
It seems to me that reeasonable doubt has been raised as to his eligibility for office, and the failure to address that, either voluntarily or by court order, places our service personnel at risk of being tried as common criminals because another political jurisdiction can deny that their orders stemmed from a lawful source (the Commander in Chief).
That alone should give people pause, and I seriously question the patriotism (not partisan loyalty, but patriotism) of those who seem to derive so much pleasure from the denial of these cases.
There is much yet to happen in the courts before this issue dies, and if some real documents are not produced, it will never go away.
Not just the Birth Certificate, but admissions records and other supporting documents which would show the citizenship status of Mr. Obama over time.
Donofrio said this morning that his case was finished and that he was going to focus on Cort’s case. He also said that the Court could/would have converted his request for a stay into a writ of cert. if they intended to hear it.
Re #10 Many thanks for your explanation.
I've seen that but haven't had time to read into it, or track down what Donofrio actually filed. All I've had time to look into is the language on the SCOTUS docket.
And the Docket reflects the denial of a request for stay. The case is not listed among all those denied writs of cert.
However, there are creative ways to frame legal briefs to ask for a different consideration should your first request for relief be denied.
Maybe that's what happened & maybe I'll spend some time tonight digging around to see.
See my post above. There might be more to this than what I wrote, depending on the exact language of Donofrio's brief to SCOTUS (although that's not reflected anywhere on SCOTUS' online docket).
Am I mistaken?
I was also under the impression that the basic facts of the case, namely, is Obama a natural born citizen, were not under consideration at the Supreme Court.
Is that true, or not?
Also, the AP reports, via Drudge, that the Secretary of State of Hawaii, at some point in the past, confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
I've never seen that statement, and I can't find it on Google.
Is that fact, or fiction?
“Not just the Birth Certificate, but admissions records and other supporting documents which would show the citizenship status of Mr. Obama over time.”
Obama will present his passport as Bush did and will be sworn in on January 20, 2009 after which you can whistle Dixie, tap dance, complain and swear but Obama will be accepted as the legal President of the United States.
Yah, I know, not by you and many others but that will not change the legality.
You sign up less tha a month ago to cheerlead Obama?
And now that I'm doing some more digging, it appears Donofrio got himself in over his head judging by what he actually filed vs. what he thinks he filed or really wished he filed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.