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?
If we pepper certain senators & congressmen with phone calls, letters, email, it's going to get thru to them.letter/email or call remind them of 0's background, what kind of people he has surrounded himself with, what he wants to do to us--the compulsory work camps (illegal), the redistribution of wealth, the seizure of guns, his connections in Chicago.
The "election" was a coup. Notice how detractors who call themselves conservatives like to point out that 67 mil people voted for him. Do they consider how many of those votes were illegal? Foreign countries--you name them--are watching us with satisfaction, biding their time until they can walk in and take us over without firing a shot.
What about the election laws that were ignored because of cowardly officials? Notice how certain detractors like to tell us 0 got 67 mil. votes, but do they consider how many of those were multi registrations, aliens voting, dead; there was voter intimidation & precinct corruption, military ballots 'lost', uncounted???
Thanks for elaborating on my thoughts and lack of confidence in SCOTUS doing anything here. Cynicism based on past observation not trolling.
BTW what is a CoLB troll you were referring to?
Cynicism based on past observation not trolling.
***No, it isn’t. Recall what I said in post 16: “Now, let me be very straightforward here: I’m NOT calling you a troll.”
BTW what is a CoLB troll you were referring to?
***CoLB = Certificate of Live Birth, troll = troll... basically, there are a bunch of long term FReepers denigrating our efforts and I’m trying to understand it. Most CoLB trolls are obvious new sign-on date trolls from DU who tell us it’s time to move on, etc., being obvious in their trolldom. It’s the longterm CoLB FReepers who troll on these threads that are a mystery to me. You call it cynicism, and I agree; I’m even cynical myself. But these longterm cynicism CoLB Trolls seem to have jumped past cynicism and are actively seeing to hamper our efforts. They are being first class anal orifices.
Post 16: Can I ask you a question in the hopes you won’t get offended? I notice that there are a bunch of oldtimer FReeper CoLB trolls who seem to have the same level of no-confidence in SCOTUS. Now, let me be very straightforward here: I’m NOT calling you a troll. What I wonder is whether this lack of confidence is what causes the FReeper CoLB trolls to lash out at those who are slightly less cynical?
If there were a constitutional requirement for the office that a person release their financials, then there’d be a legitimate issue there. But there is no such requirement. That’s why Clintoon never released his medical records, and John F’n Kerry never released his form 180. There was no constitutional requirement. It’s a legitimate political issue but not a legitimate constitutional issue.
Fighting 4 is brave. Fighting 100 is foolish. Living in Nevada I do not play in fixed games. The game of politics is fixed. On guy standing up will do no good. After the Obama Security Force is put in there will be mass executions of patriots. Not interested in that game.
***I think I understand. The way I see it, right now there are 5 or 6 liberal justices that need to understand what kind of fight they are in. Fighting those 5 for justice is bravery, using your own analogy.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification and explanation.
There is also a case in the Washington State Supreme Court, Broe vs Reed, scheduled for January 8, 2009. Subpoenas have been served.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
The fix is in.
***You may be right, and I pray that you’re wrong.
Good summary. Thanks for posting it.
There are at least eight cases in which judges have ruled that candidates are disqualified from running. Two of those involved disqualified PRESIDENTIAL candidates.Sorry for taking a while to reply, I was out for Christmas.
Article II, Section 1 says that the states can appoint their delegates to the Electoral College in whatever way they want.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.But on what constitutional basis could the vote of these electors be revoked once cast?
I can see how the states could punish officials who mismanaged the process of selecting the electors or punish electors who did not vote as "directed". I just don't see how the electors votes could be changed once the electors have been certified and their votes cast.
Also, the Constitution makes no mention of the Supreme Court having any role in managing the Electoral College or approving of it's results.
Do you have any cases or legal research that address either of these points?
ping
But on what constitutional basis could the vote of these electors be revoked once cast?
***The 20th Amendment. It clearly subordinates electoral and public votes to the eligibility of the president elect.
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 · 1,740+ views
The 20th Amendment. It clearly subordinates electoral and public votes to the eligibility of the president elect.The rest of that paragraph is important also.
... 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.If no president-elect qualifies then the vp-elect acts as president. If neither of them qualify then Congress and not the Supreme Court gets to resolve the situation.
The eight cases I referenced, exist and say what I cite them for.
I am hoping to find lawyers who know how to research the law. I am dispairing of finding some.
John / Billybob
Electoral College votes cannot be “redirected.” However, they can be freed from casting an illegal vote.Right, electors are not constitutionally bound to vote for anyone. If they had become convinced the "winner" of the November election was the wrong person for the job for whatever reason they could simply voted for someone else. In this sense they weren't "freed", they were always "free".
But once the electoral votes have been cast (as is now the case) how can they be recalled. This is no longer a case of access to state ballots in the November election. That ship has already sailed.
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.