Posted on 12/22/2008 10:05:22 AM PST by Kevmo
Will the 3rd time be the Charm in Challenging Obama's Eligibility?
Like the Energizer Bunny, the cases challenging Obama's eligibility are still going strong. There have been a ton of lawsuits challenging Obama's right to take office with fellow Democrat Philip Berg taking the lead.
To date Berg has filed several injuctions, all of which have been denied except his original compliant that is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 9th, 2009.
From WND --
"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
On one hand, it is almost hard to believe Obama's origin of birth could still be an issue at this point his political career. On the other hand, with cult-like support rivaling David Koresh & Charlie Manson that the "Anointed One" has generated, I do not put anything past them in advancing their socialist agenda.
If the birth certificate is legal and can be verified - he should produce it and put an end to this circus-like spectacle of challenges...
A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied. But the conference on the case is set Jan. 9.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of Homeland Security US reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama's eligibility still active or semi-active.
One last tidbit for you to chew on.... what if the birth certificate in question is a fraud?
What if, through these filings, the Supreme Court KNOWS Obama is not eligible to be POTUS but is thinking of the socialist $#!+-storm they will cause should they rule his election null and void?
"What if, through these filings, the Supreme Court KNOWS Obama is not eligible to be POTUS but is thinking of the socialist $#!+-storm they will cause should they rule his election null and void?"
So the $#!+-storm that will be caused if the constitution is usurped would be of no consequence comparatively, eh?
It would be prudent and wise to place more emphasis on that possibiliity lest we have to find out the hard way, IMO.
OK...i got confused...blonde thing...ha ha ha
There was no problem publishing stories and seeking heavyweight opinion about McCain
It did not last as long as the Obama controversy -- MCCAIN COMPLIED!
.. and we're the nut cases for wanting Obama to stop wasting time and, it's said, spending hundreds of thousands fighting this? The guy is saying to the Constitution and to a large number of Americans, F you! IMO.
That was said about the hubbub over McCain's birth place. BTW, the article said "Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the 'Child Born Abroad' records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain."
I could link this for you if I had any sense and knew how...anyway, this may be why the SC has denied the cases so far. For all we know, there may be a good number of reps willing to object. But would you bet the farm?
It's beyond disheartening to see this so-obvious fraud --and dangerous man--get away with this!
Schwarzenegger said on 60 Minutes he wants to run for President.
Now that the Supreme Court is letting Obama slip through it should be easy for Schwarzenegger to run.
What next???
If the Supreme Court can't uphold the laws of our constitution, who can and who will???
Too bad he didn't; he may be a big spender & left of center, but at least he's not marxist/muslim w/ties to Kenyan dictators. And terrorist friends plus Klinton retreads.
I believe he does love America.
I voted for McClintock, who happily came back to win the seat in Congress last month.
If the Supreme Court can’t uphold the laws of our constitution, who can and who will???
***It’s the end of our Constitutional Republic, which is why I recently changed my tagline. Your question is answered in the Declaration of Independence.
Crossing the Rubicon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2152080/posts
Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:53:49 PM · by Paige · 56 replies · 1,314+ views
Focal Point USA ^ | 12/20/2008 | Chris Allen
Here’s the link. I don’t think it says what you pointed out...
Open Letter - Request to refile Petition Lightfoot v Bowen with chief Justice John Roberts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2152252/posts?page=12#12
Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:22:44 PM · 12 of 48
21stCenturyFreeThinker to pallis
The Supremes need to get off their derelict duffs, and give Americans proof that Obama is a US citizen.
The Constitution gives Congress, the most political branch of government, the responsibility to judge the qualifications of the president.
They were right to do this. Do you really want unelected, life tenured judges deciding who is qualified to be president? Also, the courts move very slowly and the founding fathers wanted to keep elections from being tied up forever.
We may not like the outcome of this election but the Supreme Court is following their Constitutional role.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies
“Imagine what would happen if the courts were to overturn an election simply based on eligibility. It would be a disaster. After what happened in 2000, people would completely lose faith in the electoral process.”
***The problem with the Washington Post is that they don’t do any research. The framers of our constitution already considered this possibility and deliberately subordinated electoral results to eligibility.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,640+ views
Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution
Darn it I reversed the comment #. It’s 21, not l2. Same poster.
So the $#!+-storm that will be caused if the constitution is usurped would be of no consequence comparatively, eh?
***I think that for some SCOTUS justices, that is exactly the political calculus taking place right now. They know if they find zer0bama ineligible there will be race riots. The might be tempted to throw that little constitutional “technicality” under the bus because they detect that most constitutionalists are law abiding citizens, not the type who riot.
Historians see the end of the Roman Republic when Caesar crossed the Rubicon river and started the civil war. I believe if the Supremes throw this aspect of the constitution under the bus it will be the same sort of historical milestone for our constitutional republic. And it doesn’t even have to be as severe an indicator as civil war or rioting, just a natural trace-back to the thing that started the end of it all when the SCOTUS voted itself into irrelevance.
That’s just an opinion, and one that completely overlooks the language in the 20th amendment where it says the PE could fail to qualify. It’s the SCOTUS’s job.
To: pallis
The Supremes are hiding from something that has fallen into their laps. This is a simple matter. Take care of it.
The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the electoral college. They knew that above all the election must produce a president in a timely fashion even if an imperfect one. That’s why they gave the job to the most political branch of the government. The Supreme Court could take years to parse out the meaning of “natural born” and whether someone qualifies. Congress will take at most a few days. The founders weren’t thinking of Obama, they were thinking of the importance of having a president to national security.
If the electors had been concerned they could have voted for another candidate. If Congress is concerned they can refuse to certify the electoral college vote. If Congress becomes concerned after he is inaugurated they can impeach him. The Constitution doesn’t give the Supreme Court a role here and they know it.
It’s not fair to the Court to say they are shirking a duty the Constitution gives to Congress. It only takes four justices to decide to hear this case. Which on of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas are unwilling to take this on. My bet is it is all of them.
I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from pursuing this but I don’t think the Supreme Court could resolve it constitutionally even if they wanted to.
21 posted on Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:01:08 PM by 21stCenturyFreeThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
He's thinking about it.
Governor reveals tricks of the trade on '60 Minutes' Be sure to read post #19
L.A.Times Deletes Lead: Schwarzenegger & Presidency After Drudge & FR Feature; Could it be Obama?
My question is: besides reading the blogs and get outraged...have we seen, anywhere in the country, more than 4 people in front of the SCOTUS building?
Have we heard anything yet about US, we the people, making BIG noise like the jerks for prop 8?
Have we done anything else YET besides yelling at the SCOTUS - in the blogs - and filing and filing again and being denied over and over again? And being laughed at because WE are so ...polite...
Right now, I don’t see ANYTHING which could be loud enough to be picked up by the media. We are on the side of the law - right - guess what. That does not make any noise and it DOES NOT WORK! I am not saying that we should not be on the side of the law of course but right now the problem is: only the nutsjob are heard - the thugs...and they win - ALL THE TIME!
It seems that we cannot count on anyone but us to save this country and our Constitution.
So what’s next? Bend under marxism and hope that at least we will keep our blogs up and running???
Tell me...what’s next? Are we going to keep on blogging while our Constitution is being killed and nobody cares???
Our country is dying - Our America, The America of our Founding Fathers and what do we do since 2 years??? We blog - we are outraged - we file...right...impressive results indeed. In the meantime, the messiah, the marxist indonesian muslim wan!!! The “coup d’etat” HAPPENED and nothing seems to be able to stop him.
And...we blog...we are outraged...we file...
Wake me up when you’ll be ready to ACT!
My question is: besides reading the blogs and get outraged...have we seen, anywhere in the country, more than 4 people in front of the SCOTUS building?
Have we heard anything yet about US, we the people, making BIG noise like the jerks for prop 8?
Have we done anything else YET besides yelling at the SCOTUS - in the blogs - and filing and filing again and being denied over and over again? And being laughed at because WE are so ...polite...
Right now, I don’t see ANYTHING which could be loud enough to be picked up by the media. We are on the side of the law - right - guess what. That does not make any noise and it DOES NOT WORK! I am not saying that we should not be on the side of the law of course but right now the problem is: only the nutsjob are heard - the thugs...and they win - ALL THE TIME!
It seems that we cannot count on anyone but us to save this country and our Constitution.
So what’s next? Bend under marxism and hope that at least we will keep our blogs up and running???
Tell me...what’s next? Are we going to keep on blogging while our Constitution is being killed and nobody cares???
Our country is dying - Our America, The America of our Founding Fathers and what do we do since 2 years??? We blog - we are outraged - we file...right...impressive results indeed. In the meantime, the messiah, the marxist indonesian muslim wan!!! The “coup d’etat” HAPPENED and nothing seems to be able to stop him.
And...we blog...we are outraged...we file...
Wake me up when you’ll be ready to ACT!
There will be some (enough) who will not go quietly into the night.
That’s just an opinion, and one that completely overlooks the language in the 20th amendment where it says the PE could fail to qualify. It’s the SCOTUS’s job.True enough, it is an opinion. The Supreme Court has never ruled on it and really can't. But I do offer support for my opinion.
The 20th amendment says the President Elect can fail to qualify, but it also says that it is Congress's job to deal with that crisis.
Amendment XX - Section 3.No mention of the Supreme Court here. It's Congress all the way. We get the VP-Elect unless he doesn't qualify either. In that case we get somebody selected by Congress.If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
It is well settled that the Supreme Court can't remove a sitting president because the Constitution specifically gives the job to Congress. He has to be impeached and convicted. Similar reasoning applies to the president elect.
Check out some of the other posts on that thread. I hate to post the same thing over and over on many threads.
All it would take is for one patriot, who works in the Hawaii's Secretary of State office and has access to birth records, to accept the criminal penalties and make the birth certificate public.
' . . . and the Republic into obscurity.'
Usurpation light, heh? By degrees. You may be right.
Your post does not address the original thing that luvadavi posted:
The Court can only act when Congress raises the question of elibility... Congress has to raise the objection first, then it can go to SCOTUS.
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.