Skip to comments.Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents (Photos)
Posted on 01/11/2013 4:44:07 AM PST by voicereason
click here to read article
This brings something else to mind. Remember when “Lucas Smith” sent via certified mail affidavits to all the members of Congress containing the particular proofs he offered up of having gotten Obama’s birth certificate from a hospital in Mombasa?
According to the assistant at Rep Adrian Smith’s office, the House has a rule that anything from a non-constituent has to be forwarded to that person’s representative.
IOW, all the certified mail that “Lucas Smith” sent ended up in the offices of 3 people - the 2 senators and one representative who represent him.
Thousands of dollars’ worth. None of them would even look at it. The ONLY way the House rules allow these critters to get information is by the threatened media. The rules establish a monopoly, because if you or I tried to tell OUR critters about “Lucas Smith” and his evidence, they would dismiss it as “mere hearsay”. Every state would have to have somebody go to Kenya and bribe the hospital worker into getting a copy of a birth certificate, in order for our critters to even HEAR about any of this.
I haven’t seen “Lucas Smith”’s affidavit so I have no idea of the credibility of his claims. But the idea that the information cannot even get through to these people is suicidal for this country. The system is rigged to ensure that the critters are controlled by the Soros-owned media.
“at least Orly made it all the way to the Supreme Court”
No. Anyone can file, but there is no chance they will accept her case. She hasn’t made it to the Supreme Court, nor will she. She doesn’t have a case...
Your "will of the voters" comment actually hits the proverbial nail on the head. Beginning 210 years ago in Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS has avoided certain controversies by invoking the "political question doctrine" that has it's roots in the concept of "separation of powers." What this basically means is that the SCOTUS will not get involved in controversies that are best left to the political process to resolve.
For example, the SCOTUS will not rule on the legality of the internal rules and processes of the House or the Senate unless those rules or processes violate a fundamental constitutional mandate such as equal protection under the law. The SCOTUS will generally avoid review of executive orders unless the order clearly goes beyond the internal administration of executive departments or usurps the powers and authority that the Constitution delegates to the House and Senate. And while the Constitution sets certain eligibility requirements for POTUS, I can make an argument for the SCOTUS to avoid the controversy under the political question doctrine on the grounds that the political process should determine whether the eligibility requirements have been met. In other words, let the voters, Electoral College, and elected representatives at the state and federal level set the standards and procedures for determining whether a candidate has met the constitutional eligibility requirements for POTUS.
They have dismissed other similar cases without conference.
Which chaos would the justices rather have?
One driven by rule of law that shows fraud on the part of a powerful and popular leader - coupled with inner city rioting.
One driven by the federal branch acting outside its authority that has tens of thousands of armed citizens striking back at the illegal actions of a federal government, that is likely to fight back.
In my view, one chaos is contained and self-inflicted, likely to have limited duration and be controllable.
The other is very open ended.
It looks like the choice could very well be in the hands of the USSC. I know which way I would pick. (Assuming they are aware of the coming Obama EO on guns.)
This case involves forgery of government documents and fraud.
No mention is made of eligibility, natural born citizenship.
The crimes at issue are important, but they are enabling crimes for the great crime of ineligibility. They don’t want to touch eligibility because the political establishment has their fingerprints all over it. From Pelosi, state Democrat committees, SOSs, and judges (the Georgia Supreme Court, or more recently “Miracle on 34th St” judge Carroll - all of whom should be disbarred), there is enormous complicity.
If the case is heard I hope Taitz has the sense to enlist others and does not attempt to go it alone.
If this case is summarily dismissed, we are a nation of the personality cult, rather than a nation of laws.
One very serious flaw in that has now been exposed: The Hawaii state registrar has legally confirmed that Obama has no legally-established birth facts, and Hawaii law requires the birth facts claimed on Obama’s legally non-valid Hawaii BC to be legally determined in an administrative or judicial procedure.
IOW, the judicial system says this is best decided by the political process, but Hawaii statutes say it can ONLY be decided by a legal process presided over by a judge.
There is NO WAY that this even CAN be a “political question”, by the judicial definition of “political”.
Not necessarily. See comment no. 43, below.
Good points Triple.
In either case, I’m continuing to “stock up.”
Good points Triple.
In either case, I’m continuing to “stock up.”
Unless I am mistaken, it takes an affirmative vote of four Justices to hear a case, and that does not mean they will vote in favor of anything.
I don’t believe that there are four Justices who wish to see this matter heard, but if there are, I believe it is because one of them wants to shoot this argument in the head.
They will do it on procedural grounds so that the merits are never reached, since it will then leave the door open for future interpretation.
This is nothing to get excited about. The only thing interesting is that Kennedy at first through it out, and then on second go round, it was accepted for conference. I think we know how Kennedy will vote on the case if it ever is heard before the court.
The procedures for ballot access are defined in state laws.
The procedures for challenges are defined in state laws.
All these laws have been ignored.
Additionally, eligibility is not a political issue.
Save for careful reading later.
Nothing personal, but maybe this concept really is beyond the average person's intellect. If Congress or a state wants pass a law that requires a candidate for POTUS to produce a valid birth certifcate as a condition precedent for getting on the ballot, then that's up to Congress or the States to establish such a policy. The SCOTUS decides questions of law; it does not decide policy/political questions.
If a candidate ran on a platform of ushering in the reign of the anti-Christ and ^actively^ campaigned that the USConstitution would be dissolved upon his “coronation”, provided he is elected according to the popular vote that defines the Electoral Vote, then...at that time..the SCOTUS will uphold the EC election and the US will be no longer.
The SCOTUS should be the focus of our fellow >Constitutional Fundamentalists< anger; not Obamugabe.
What happens is these cases work their way up to the SCOTUS so to look fair they schedule them for conference. Then on Wed when the SCOTUS have their conference to decide which cases they will hear they always kick the birther case loose. That way it looks like they considered it.
In the past Justice Scalia has told Orly Taitz that it takes 4 justices to vote for a case in order for it to be heard. What he is telling her is that there are only 3 that are voting for these cases. My guess is that its Roberts who won’t vote to hear them.
Last chance for Roberts to redeem himself after the Obamacare sellout, if there's anything redeemable.
Maybe this is beyond your comprehension, but you can’t determine the eligibility of somebody if they have no legally-established birth facts. In order to “qualify” the person must be old enough, a resident of the US long enough, and a natural born citizen. If there are no legally-known facts of birth there is no way it can be legally established that the person is eligible. What we know now is that anybody who claimed he was eligible was lying through their teeth. Obama only got on the state ballots through fraud. That is now a legal FACT.
The 20th Amendment says that if a President-elect (somebody declared by Congress to be the electoral winner) fails to qualify by Jan 20th he cannot “act as President”. What I can tell you right now is that there is no way Obama could ever have qualified, given that he has no legally-established birth facts. There is NOTHING legally-credible to say that he was born in the USA OR that he is old enough to be President. We have no idea when or where he was born. That’s what it means to have no legally-established birth facts. There’s no way a President-elect like that could have “qualified”.
Being President-elect means they qualified from an electoral standpoint - which is the entire involvement of the states and Congress - so the disqualifying factors that the 20th Amendment deals with are the ones from Article II: the age, citizenship, and residency requirements. There is nothing that Congress can do about those requirements, and the states have dismissed administrative procedures that would have been able to establish birth facts if the non-valid BC had been presented as evidence.
My point is that the Article II eligibility issues, which are involved in the 20th Amendment, involve BIRTH FACTS and thus CAN NOT be determined through political means when there ARE NO birth facts. Hawaii statute specifically limits the determination of birth facts to procedures presided over by a JUDGE. Any judge who calls this a “political issue” is flat-out wrong, as attested by Hawaii statute itself.
SCOTUS decides questions of FACT and law.
There is no way to determine questions of law without first determining questions of FACT, and Hawaii has revealed that Obama’s Hawaii BC is non-valid and thus his birth facts can only be determined by a procedure presided over by a judge, in which that non-valid BC is presented as evidence.
The facts upon which eligibility depends are expressly forbidden to be determined by Congress, which is legislative.
And even state Secretaries of State cannot determine any birth facts for Obama without having the non-valid BC presented as evidence. If the SOS’s had POLICIES for doing that, it should have happened by now and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And the Constitution says that even if the states and Congress are done with their entire involvement in the process of choosing a President, that President-elect can STILL “fail to qualify” by Jan 20th. So the 20th Amendment is EXPLICIT in saying that “qualifying” means more than simply meeting state and Congressional requirements to get elected.
The Constitution says that no one can be President if they are not old enough, not a natural born US citizen, or have not resided in the US long enough. Hawaii says that Obama has not proven any of those things and that the legal presumption is that the claims on his HI BC are NOT true. It CANNOT be legally presumed that he is old enough. It CANNOT be legally presumed that he was born in Hawaii. The burden of proof falls on Obama now because his BC is not legally credible according to HAWAII’s standards (and that’s saying a LOT, given Hawaii’s lax requirements!!!) What we know is that he has NOT adequately made his legal case for a Hawaii birth, because Hawaii cannot presume that anything claimed on his BC is true. Legally speaking, all we know is that we know nothing about Obama’s true birth facts at this point - and can’t until all the records are audited according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Which requires a judicial or administrative procedure that we KNOW has not happened yet.
The tolerant left targeting those that they don’t agree with...
‘Libtalker Mike Malloy calls for mass killings of birthers’
The dreadful and hate-filled libtalker, Mike Malloy, says birthers should all get in a big circle with their AR-15s and open fire on each other at his command:
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.