Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.
Plains Radio ^ | 1/2/09 | Patriot08

Posted on 01/02/2009 1:16:10 PM PST by patriot08

Ed Hale of Plains Radio has secured a copy of the Dunham/Obama divorce decree as promised. He has registered this at the courthouse and has turned the document over to lawyers who are reported to be happy and enthused over the contents.

This is the first page. This is all that can be divulged at this time as those who have seen the decree are sworn to silence. You may hear information about it tonight on Ed's plainsradio show.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anyminute; bho2008; birthcertificate; birthplace; certifigate; divorce; dunham; obama; obamafamily; obamatruthfile; realsoonnow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,901-1,945 next last
To: nufsed

You said — “Refusal to produce proof of qualification is in and of itself sufficient enough reason to prevent him from taking office and we’ll see if 5 judges have the courage to say so.”

And if they don’t then does that settle it?


1,001 posted on 01/02/2009 8:58:26 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 992 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

You seem to intentionally concentrate on what suits you in comparing the Arthur case to the Obama case. There are a vast amount of differences involving these two cases.


1,002 posted on 01/02/2009 8:58:31 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
They would have given her immigration paperwork to fill out and have stamped, but would have returned the birth certificate to her.

Might they have made a photocopy of it, or even just a record of having seen it, along with some information from it? Or would the paperwork itself have the information on the place of birth of the baby?

Remember BHO Jr, would not be coming in as a US Citizen, so the BC would not be one from a US Embassy or Consulate, but rather a British Colonial one. Under the appropriate assumptions of course.

1,003 posted on 01/02/2009 9:01:13 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
And, it seems that we’ve found another “loophole” in the Constitution, then, if the Vice President does not have to be qualified under the Constitution to be President. Now.., that’s a real big loophole. It looks like there are more problems to fix with the Constitution... LOL...

The rumors of his Canadian birth were not enough to get him impeached as the general public liked him and the Impeachment process is based upon “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It was however enough to produce that very rare event, an incumbent president requesting nomination by his party for reelection and not getting it.

As for a loophole? Could be. The text is very clear.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

I do not see the word “Vice-President” anywhere in the text. The constitution specifies the succession. Yet there is no natural born requirement for vice-President but a clear statement that the Vice-President replaces the President in case he is removed or dies.

Article II - The Presidency

Section 1 - Election, Installation, Removal

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Additionally the 25th Amendment is not subject to any interpretation at all and represented the general opinion that Article 2 Section 1 really does mean what it states.

Amendment XXV - Presidential Succession (1967)

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Sooo, the only thing I see that requires any further clarification is why do you constantly harass FReepers? Take a break, you don’t have to prove you are an azz-whole every day of your life.

1,004 posted on 01/02/2009 9:02:01 PM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 944 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

The so called missing page may be nothing more than the empty copied back page of a four page set. Modern copiers will copy on both sides and the tech may not ‘edit’ the # of pages since seals and things register through to even empty pages.


1,005 posted on 01/02/2009 9:02:16 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

Okay, but why would there be any mystery about Stanley Ann’s date of death? Hasn’t that been documented?

So the grandparents never had a house (with a lawn) in Hawaii?

Honestly... that whole family is strange.


1,006 posted on 01/02/2009 9:02:33 PM PST by Mad-Margaret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: DAVEY CROCKETT; Chief Engineer

Orland and Thelma

Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:58:11 AM by MacSuibhne

Orland d. 7/287/07, Thelma d. 6/28/08. Plenty on Orland, he was a professor, etc. They both passed away at 91. On-line records go back to 1976. I’m sure with a bit of creativity, we can confirm who resided in 0’s birth house.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2150358/posts


1,007 posted on 01/02/2009 9:02:37 PM PST by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies]

To: DAVEY CROCKETT

Orland Scott Lefforge died July 4,2007 at the age of 91.
Thelma Jones Lefforge Young his wife/companion died Jun 12/08 at the age of 91. Good luck trying to find info about them it is extremely sparse, speaking from experience!


1,008 posted on 01/02/2009 9:03:26 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 983 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer
My guess is she entered through Bellingham but knowing how lax the border was in the 60’s I doubt the birth was registered at the port of entry.

So you think they flew into Vancouver and then drove or took a bus to Bellingham on to Seattle?

1,009 posted on 01/02/2009 9:04:26 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Bronwynn
You want to be looking for port of entry, not point of entry.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22port+of+entry%22+%2B%22birth+certificate%22&btnG=Search

1,010 posted on 01/02/2009 9:05:01 PM PST by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: Chief Engineer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRqfnP9kNek

Is this the judge that presided over the divorce hearing?


1,011 posted on 01/02/2009 9:08:42 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Appears to be.


1,012 posted on 01/02/2009 9:10:24 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1011 | View Replies]

To: SFConservative

I couldn’t tell what the hell he was saying honestly because he slurs his words, but I got this from searching “point of entry”, so maybe try both:

http://www.trademal.com/info/index3.php?http://www.trademal.com/info/index.php?option=content&pcontent=1&task=view&id=12&Itemid=89

It’s Malaysia, so not what we’re looking for but it gives a good overview of procedures.


1,013 posted on 01/02/2009 9:10:45 PM PST by Bronwynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

You said — “It seems as if the whole point you are trying to make is that this issue may notbe seen through to the point of getting justice. Is that it?”

Well, one knows what we have to meet up to, and that’s what the Constitution says in this matter. Now, we’re only at the point of allegations (aside from some who say that the “known facts” are enough to disqualify Obama, but that remains for a court to say). And being at the point of allegations — without proof — which is required (for a court, if nothing else...), it appears that Obama is going into office without a problem (of course, that’s dependent upon what a court does before then...).

And if he gets into office, well then, it’s apparent that we couldn’t get justice — but only if — the allegations are true. But, one thing about courts — is that they will either *verify* or *negate* allegations. And since we are going through the courts, we’ll soon see whether these allegations are verified or not (by their decisions). And since it’s the Supreme Court — they are the final word and that means when they reach their decision (even if it’s not decision at all) that will be the final word on the matter, since you can’t appeal beyond the Supreme Court.

So, where will those people be, who still believe that Obama is not qualified and if the Supreme Court does not agree with them? I don’t know (for them). For me, when the Supreme Court says their final word (whatever it is) that will put it to rest for me...

I think that’s what I’m saying... LOL..

Well President Arthur may have something to say to those people who don’t agree with the Supreme Court (if they don’t decide to get Obama out or prove that he’s not eligible) — in that they will think (always, apparently) that Obama is not qualified even though the issue is finally settled with the Supreme Court — so they will be in that very position of those people (back then) who said that President Arthur was not qualified, yet he still was President and he still did everything as a President would do. It would be relevant to these present day people as it was to those back then who would not accept that President Arthur was “legitimate” (at least as legitimate as history records he was...).


1,014 posted on 01/02/2009 9:11:01 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 985 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

We’re thinking on paralellel roads. A young girls with a new baby would not want to travel alone with just the baby and his paper work..

IMO Sr would have travel with her...I think our first port should be the closest one to Harvard where hHE was attending school.

He would have assisted her in getting back into the country with the baby and his paper work. Then she could have continued her trip to friends and family in WA and HI.


1,015 posted on 01/02/2009 9:12:51 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 980 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

You know, a lot of people have talked about what we can do if this happens and that happens and it’s evidence to prove the case against Obama.

What I would like to know is what people will do if it is never proven and Obama continues in office. It seems that many people are not prepared for that possibility.

And further than that — what if the Supreme Court, by their actions puts the final word on it and makes it so that Obama is qualified. Will people accept the Supreme Court as the final word on it?

I do wonder about those things...


1,016 posted on 01/02/2009 9:13:27 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 996 | View Replies]

To: Bronwynn

Q. What is acceptable if a birth certificate is not available?
A. In lieu of a birth certificate you may provide: (1) A passport or attested transcript of a passport filed with a registrar of passports at a point of entry of the United States showing the date and place of birth of the child; (2) An attested transcript of the certificate of birth; (3) An attested transcript of the certificate of baptism or other religious record showing the date and place of birth; (4) An attested transcript of a hospital record showing the date and place of birth of the child; (5) a birth affidavit. [O.R.C. 3313.672]


1,017 posted on 01/02/2009 9:14:14 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Well, that’s a real big loophole if the Vice President does not have to be qualified under the Constitution to become President. Very interesting. It does seem that the Constitution has some gaping holes in it. That’s a real big one...

Very interesting...

And if it’s no big deal for a Vice President to be qualified, I’m wondering if someone will try to promote the idea that it shouldn’t be important for a President to be qualified either — since a Vice President can take the office of President without being qualified.


1,018 posted on 01/02/2009 9:17:03 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
You are posting under the misconception that the supreme court is the final word on everything. I don't know where you got that. Apparently, you have never heard of the abortion issue. Do you think people who believe that abortion is murder just rolled over and went to sleep?

Have you never heard of public opinion or pressure or history? I can't believe you're that naive.

1,019 posted on 01/02/2009 9:18:59 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I will point out to you that we are past the point of allegations in regards to the ‘natural born’ argument. Obama has already admitted to being born to a British/Kenyan father and to possess duel citizzenship at birth. There is no real reason to think that the Justices aren’t already thinking of this or reason to think that may not, we will see.

I will agree with you that alot rides on the response by the Supreme Court (and we still have to get to that point) but still this case has aspects to it that are vastly different than the Arthur case that will also make it trickier to be dismissed.


1,020 posted on 01/02/2009 9:19:35 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1014 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Will people accept the Supreme Court as the final word on it?

I do wonder about those things...

You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story


1,021 posted on 01/02/2009 9:19:38 PM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Look at one of the comments posted by the very guy that made the Dark Socrates video:

“By the way, I do not appreciate you guys giving
LordShadrach “Thumbs Down” on his comment. He is just stating what he believes, and as you can see, he clearly rejects this 2012 nonsense. Please judge him on his comments, and not on the fact that he takes a position that differs from yours.”


This guy needs the Dark Soratic method applied to his Hypocrisy.


1,022 posted on 01/02/2009 9:19:41 PM PST by CommieCutter (Blaming guns is like blaming the car for actions of the drunk driver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

You said — “You seem to intentionally concentrate on what suits you in comparing the Arthur case to the Obama case. There are a vast amount of differences involving these two cases.”

I just look at it in the basic terms of the Constitutional requirements for being President and allegations (for both of them) that they are not qualified — and then — it not being proven (at least not at that time...).

That’s a basic picture for me...


1,023 posted on 01/02/2009 9:20:10 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]

To: Bronwynn; All

What is the closest point of Entry to Harvard?

Here are some other places to look:

www.genesearch.com/ports.html

www.loc.gov/rr/genealogy/bib_guid/immigrant/general.html - 21k

www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=116 - 34k


1,024 posted on 01/02/2009 9:21:01 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Well, interesting that you won’t accept a final Supreme Court decision on the matter. I will and I don’t even know what they’re gong to say about it.

But, you seem to say that you’ll only accept the Supreme Court if they do what you say... Now, that’s an odd view of the Supreme Court, I would think...


1,025 posted on 01/02/2009 9:21:37 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Well dont keep yourself up at nigh wondering such things.

Why should anyone have to answer such ‘what if’ questions about how they will view an issue so far off into the future? Esecially considering how many angles there are to this issue in regardsto Obama. The Arthur case was not as complex even. We have the question of Kenyan birth, duel citizenship at birth, the adoptionand Indonesian citizenship, the communist family ties, etc....


1,026 posted on 01/02/2009 9:22:53 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I don’t know the exact date the info was submitted but I went to the site in late July/08.


1,027 posted on 01/02/2009 9:22:53 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: CommieCutter

That whole thing is plain weird, I think, and twisted, too...


1,028 posted on 01/02/2009 9:23:05 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: sneakers

Oh gosh - gotta go to bed!


1,029 posted on 01/02/2009 9:23:40 PM PST by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

You said — “You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story”

I’m finding it very odd that people have decided that they won’t accept a Supreme Court ruling if it does not go the way they have decided it should go. That doesn’t sound like following our “system” at all...


1,030 posted on 01/02/2009 9:24:27 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1021 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

It is so basic that it is meaningless then to learn much from it. You leave out vast differences when trying to make the point that me may learn something from it?


1,031 posted on 01/02/2009 9:25:30 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
The 20th amendment requires the president and the vice president to meet the qualifications for office. You are persisting in the straw man argument that the VP doesn't have to be qualifed to be president.

Are you saying that the current govs of Mich or Cal could be vice president?

1,032 posted on 01/02/2009 9:25:44 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: jetxnet

You are incorrect. Ann came back to HI from WA state, not Indonesia!


1,033 posted on 01/02/2009 9:26:15 PM PST by Chief Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 970 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
A plane from Scotland would have landed on the east coast, especially in 1961.

Probably, if so it would have stopped in Gander, Newfoundland Canada, many US military flights moving troops to and from the sandbox/rockpile stop there to refuel even today. But if the destination was Hawaii, they would not go through a US east Coast city because they are too far south of the shortest (great circle) path from Scotland/England, even Gander is somewhat south of the path.

I looked at a great circle course calculator, and while Kenya to Britain, to Newfoundland to Vancouver to Hawaii is longer than Kenya to Hawaii, the direct path goes over China (not friendly in'61) and probably had fewer routes available. The route via London would have had more flights, and probably some stops along the way, either in North Africa or Italy. Flying from England to Hawaii via Gander Newfoundland and Vancouver/Seattle would be longer than direct from Great Britain to Vancouver/Seattle and then to Hawaii, but may have been too far for most or all commercial aircraft in '61. Thus the most probable path from Kenya to Hawaii would be through London, Gander, Vancouver or Seattle, and then on to Hawaii, with another possible refueling stop somewhere near Italy.

The fact that the world (almost) round can be confusing when thinking of flat maps.

1,034 posted on 01/02/2009 9:26:16 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

If we’re past the point of allegations — how come I don’t see any court orders... :-)

You see..., for me to be past the point of allegations is for a court order to come down and say it in the authority of the court. Absent that, it’s still in the realm of allegations.

And if the Supreme Court decides that Obama is eligible — I have already “wondered” (in previous posts) if that will finally settle it for people here. And I find the very odd idea that people will only accept a Supreme Court ruling if it goes the way they think it should go — according to their own opinion, here and now.

Now, that doesn’t sound like we’re following our own “system” (by the Constitution that gives us that Supreme Court) if we don’t accept what they decide... It’s very strange for people who claim to be Constitutional, to abandon the ruling of the Supreme Court if it’s not according to their opinion... LOL..


1,035 posted on 01/02/2009 9:28:07 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE COURT SAYS. You are ignoring what I posted earlier or you’re still trying to come up with an answer. If the court or the congress do not ensure that the president meets the qualifications, we will ensure it is not the end of it. You can be as flabbergasted as you like.


1,036 posted on 01/02/2009 9:28:13 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Mad-Margaret

I belong to Ancestry.com and found Stanley Ann’s death recorded on the Social Security Death Index 7 NOV 1995, Honolulu.


1,037 posted on 01/02/2009 9:30:08 PM PST by keepitreal (Obama brings change: an international crisis (terrorism) within 6 months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Now this is very interesting. I always thought that if we followed through our Constitutional system that we accepted the outcome of our Constitutional process as the way of our government and the peaceful process that we have in governing ourselves, accordingly.

But, now I find that people are saying that they will not accept the Constitutional processes — and not even a Supreme Court ruling — if it does not go the way that their opinion says it should.

That makes me wonder if some are really Constitutional at all...


1,038 posted on 01/02/2009 9:30:49 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I meant that we are past allegations in the sense that the argument being made is bsed upon something that is not contested (Obama having duel citizenship at birth).

And why do you think that people have to agree with every Court decision. We have had Supreme Courtdecisions that have even contradicted (or overtuned) other decisions. So how do you agree with both?


1,039 posted on 01/02/2009 9:31:55 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: BossLady

Thanks for the PING. Happy New Year, btw.


1,040 posted on 01/02/2009 9:32:32 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I'll help you some more. If the court decides he's qualified then their decision will be analyzed to determine how the decision was made. If the court is not thorough or accurate in their process, it will not be the end of the issue, as I indicated earlier.

You need to read some US history about public pressure, civil disobedience, and investigations of "closed issues."

I mentioned abortion earlier. Anyone who's been alive the last 25 years knows that a supreme court action is not the final word on everything.

1,041 posted on 01/02/2009 9:32:36 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I just can’t see her traveling alone. I would thin that she would accompany SR to Kenya and return to the US with him.....She was a young wgirl with a new baby....She may have travel from the east to west coast alone, but not all the way from Africa....No Africa—England—East Coast and then onward by herself to WA or HI.

What is the closest airport to Harvard?


1,042 posted on 01/02/2009 9:32:46 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
And if it’s no big deal for a Vice President to be qualified, I’m wondering if someone will try to promote the idea that it shouldn’t be important for a President to be qualified either — since a Vice President can take the office of President without being qualified.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
U.S. Constitution
AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
... "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

1,043 posted on 01/02/2009 9:32:46 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

You couldn’t be more wrong and more ignorant of US history.


1,044 posted on 01/02/2009 9:33:26 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Okay, then the Vice President has to be qualified under the same provisions as the President. That clears it up....

So, President Arthur was neither Constitutionally qualified as Vice President or as President of the United States...

My God... President Arthur is doing “twice” what people say that Obama is doing — but he’s only doing it for one office (Arthur did it for two offices [i.e., not qualified]


1,045 posted on 01/02/2009 9:33:46 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Boston


1,046 posted on 01/02/2009 9:33:54 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Your questions about Arthuir have been answered repeatedly on this thread. I have no pretension that you will believe me, if you didn't believe 5 or 6 others.

Secondly, so what?

1,047 posted on 01/02/2009 9:35:33 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal

Do yo have a port of entry section, for those who immigrated to the US, at that sight?


1,048 posted on 01/02/2009 9:36:09 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I’m finding it very odd that people have decided that they won’t accept a Supreme Court ruling if it does not go the way they have decided it should go. That doesn’t sound like following our “system” at all...

Here we may find some common ground.

There is a difference between accepting a Supreme Court ruling on the here and now, and fighting to change it (which is not an accepting behavior).

For example, I offer the recent Kelo eminent domain "takings" decision. People accepted the taking of their property because the alternative was forcible removable by law enforcement. But, that did not stop states from enacting laws to nullify the Supreme Court ruling for future eminent domain claims in their states.

So, Supreme Court rulings are not "final" in that sense. If Obama can't be stopped in 2009, he might still be prevented from running in 2012, as was Arthur, by new laws requiring the positive proof of qualification by candidates before running for president.

-PJ

1,049 posted on 01/02/2009 9:36:16 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Class is adjourned. Do your homework and correct your misconceptions about supreme court decisions.


1,050 posted on 01/02/2009 9:36:18 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,901-1,945 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson