Posted on 12/20/2008 1:21:22 PM PST by Bill Dupray
It’s Philip Berg’s case and it is a meeting to discuss whether to grant certiorari.
More . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotroom.com ...
“Because the Berg case has no merit and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Aliro will refuse this case, just as they refused the previous cases.”
They haven’t actually refused any cases yet, just interim stays.
Nice contumely!
Some of the best condescension I've ever experienced. Thanks!
With great timidity I humbly offer my opinion of the issue.
My birth certificate which I have had to provide on several occasions lists the address of the hospital/institution or in my case the street address of birth. It's signed by a physician who witnessed the birth.
Why do some soar above law and our tradition as a nation of laws not men? Why do the "little people" have to prove and some not?
Some have their cute little excuse that there's no controlling legal authority to compel them to for example show a complete birth certificate. Why?
If the Constitution ain't law I don't know what the hell is -- controlling legal authority or not.
I remember when Clinton raped that woman; but no one would talk about it until they semi impeached the rotten you know what.
Isn't it just amazing how defiant our government is to handling the truth about things like this?
Blago and Rezko are really our best shots at embarrassing Obama right now on the world stage, because I seldom see anyone out there in the MSM playing the truth about Obama.
I give credit to the Talk Radio and internet circuits as well.
I fear that Blago and Rezko are gonna end up like the DC Madam.
You are missing the point, entirely.
BO could have been born in Podunk in front of 20 witnesses who all stand up and swear to it. It doesn’t matter.
The request has been made to provide what is considered normal proof of birth. This is a legitimate request for information specifically required by the Constitution.
When I got my DL in KY, nothing short of my BC was sufficient. Regardless of how many people I could have gotten to swear as to my birth. That, my friend is the point.
It is not WHAT is on the BC that (at least at this point) is the issue. It is his REFUSAL to present the BC.
“I’m comfortable that leftist koolaid drinker, after reviewing it, will conclude these allegations about 0bama not being a natural born citizen don’t mean anything because he is god incarnate and whatever rules he might bend don’t matter. Plus his thugs will be after those who disagree”.
And curiosity’s source for defeating the “tinfoil hat nonsense” are Fight the Smears, Fact Check, and Media Matters - 0bama/leftist garbage.
Thanks for playing, curiosity!
You’ve been punk3d, btw!
I have a research question about the Obama birth certificate and the lawsuits.
The Alan Keyes lawsuit has this in it: “Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.”
Philip Berg’s does not.
Who first came up with this mistake (box 7c is the Mother’s usual residence, not the place of birth)? Was it Keyes or did he get from somewhere else?
If anybody knows, drop by obamaconspiracy.org and leave them a note via the Contact link.
Thanks.
“when I volunteered at a mental hospital when I was in high school”
That explains you...overdosed on some patient’s anti-psychiotic and you haven’t been rational since.
Fella or Gal...granted the whole business with the birth certicate might be a collosal waste of time without any merit. However, why doesn’t Mr. Obama just produce the originals and end the speculation? What does he have to hide? If he wasn’t foreign born, did his mom have a venereal disease that is indicated on the BC or some other such embarassing thing? If so, this is 2008, and that stuff just doesn’t matter anymore. So, he should fully reveal everything and end speculation and concern.
More importantly, in my thinking at least, is why doesn’t the SCOTUS just review the documents themselves and make a ruling? That would satisfy any doubts I might have. I’m certain the same would be true for most others.
If liberals (black and white) can throw Oreos at conservative blacks then how can they complain if we poke a little fun at liberal blacks?
(The liberals will complain of course and scream "Racist!" It's what they do.)
Look at box 6d. If the “No” box is check “give judicial district,” which means somewhere else.
I would think the key would be that if he was not born in Hawaii, one would have to prove where he WAS born.
It’s sad they appear to be so one sided.
Basically, you’re asking the SCOTUS to properly vett him on this issue. It makes total sense since no one else has done it, which is why it probably wont occur. ;-)
Of course, i’d love to see them remand the case back to the lower court with the order that the BC be produced, which is the more usual procedure.
But they are the top court in the land and they can do what they want- even make new law and change the standing requirements, if they believe that that barrier should be removed from cases like this.
It is the responsibility fot he candidate for the job to provide proof of eligibility. The Constitution stipulates three points for eligibility. The one which requires the candidate be a natural born citizen is ambiguous to the point of needing the SCOTUS to dig into the history of the term as used by the framers writing the Constitution. It may well be that Barry Obama did not have American citizen parents (plural) and he would be ineligible because of his admitted British subject father passing British citizenship to him at birth regardless of where he was born. It is not the responsibility of We The People to find and present evidence that he is lying, defrauding, or ineligible. Besides, Barry Soetoro Obama has had an army of attorneys and detectives seal from any view the relevant documentation of his adult life so that searching for evidence would be fruitless.
Ah yes, stick to the latest Axelrod talking points ... ‘Berg’s a kook truther conspricay nut’. Your butties are making sure the point is raised often this weekend. Are you enjoying the ridicule game as much as it appears you are?
If so, then big deal. Congress meets on the 6th to vote him in.
Yeah that approach to dismissing the issue of ineligibility works about as well as another Axelrod lie, that ‘Ayers and Obama must have met casually sometime since their kids attend the same schools’. LOL
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.