Posted on 01/08/2009 12:59:02 PM PST by FARS
TWO SUPREME COURT CASES ARE STILL PENDING AND COULD PREVENT OBAMA FROM BEING SWORN IN.
THE FIRST WILL BE VIEWED BY THE FULL COURT ON FRIDAY JANUARY 9TH WHERE THE CASE REQUESTS SCOTUS TO ORDER OBAMA TO PRODCUE HIS VAULT COPY OF THIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE (if one actually exists).
If he fails to comply, then on January 16th, the full court will view another lawsuit that would then suspend or negate the Congress certification of the Electoral Vote count and put the presidency in limbo.
Military's Duty to Obey Barry Soetoro aka Obama??
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/breaking-news-listen-toparticipate-phil.html
(Excerpt) Read more at antimullah.com ...
Cna’t impeach him, he is not a legal president....Just arrest him
We have the next presidential election in 4 years. I am willing to bet that the red states will enact legislation that **all** candidate must show proof of citizen status before the name is entered on the ballot.
If this happens, Obama will develop a vague health problem, and choose not to run for a second term. And...Of course there's the “more time with the family” line.( yeah right!)
That is if the communists will allow another election. :(
I’m thinking the SCOTUS won’t be the vehicle to unseat the marxist fraud. It will have to start at a state court.
LOL! Now, now, Clinton has finished his terms in office, so that won’t be necessary.
Well that could be the state court in Washington.
The Washington Supreme Court has arrived at a decision, but as of now, have not released the decision.
Pidgeon said the person who gave him the news was a little hostile. Sounds good so far.
So they cave to a terrorist threat? Throw the Constitution under the bus? Then thye are not worthy of their postions.
Their duty is to the Constitution, even if it creates riots or their own deaths. It is notthere to be addressed only if that can be done comfortablu or without personal risk.
Anymore than one of our brave military can ignore the mission to protect our nation and to honor a legitimate order and Commander in Chief.
“They are have no duty to obey if he isn’t legitimate. They are sworn to protect the Constitution first.”
That is questionable. If you are enlisted your oath is as follows:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Notice that enlisted personnel have limitations placed upon them....”obey the orders.....”
However, commmissioned officers have a little more wiggle room. Here is their oath of office:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
However, openly showing disrepect or contempt for the POTUS is a courts-martial offense for commissioned officers in the UCMJ. It would be extremely risky for an officer to oppose the POTUS without rock solid proof first. There is the “Catch 22.”
bttt
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Gleefully looking forward to it.
I didn’t say I agreed with it, I just am saying what is going to happen. SCOTUS took a lot of heat from the 2000 election. They are not wanting to do that again. We will see what happens today. I won’t be surprised if they throw the case out.
The crucial factor here is for Berg to get past the discovery phase in trial. Right now they are being blocked from their discovery efforts to get the ‘vault’ copy. If the court allows them to move forward then we will find out the answer very soon.
for your various CertifiGate ping lists
MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
The Supreme Court has released the list of cases it has agreed to hear as a result of today’s conference. Berg’s case is not on the list. Note two of the cases below that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear. They see a constitutional issue on minority rights but see no constitutional issue on the eligibility of the president elect?
Today’s orders list is now available here.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-1909/#more-8498
The Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in four cases today, filings for which are available after the jump.
__________________
Docket: 07-1428; 08-328
Title: Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al.
Issue: Whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination.
Docket: 08-289; 08-294
Title: Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores
Issue: Whether the courts below improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children.
Opinion below (9th Circuit)
Petition for certiorari (08-289)
Petition for certiorari (08-294)
Brief in opposition (Flores)
Brief in opposition (Arizona)
Petitioner’s reply (08-294)
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation (in support of petitioners)
Brief amici curiae of the American Legislative Exchange Council as Amicus Curiae (in support of petitioners)
Pray for the Supreme Court Today
Free Republic | 1/9/09 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2161668/posts
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 9:32:42 AM by Kevmo
I rather agree with you. I don’t think even the Supremes have the cojones to take the heat should Obama be found ineligible. Look at what happened when they got involved with the Bush-Gore election. That would be a child’s birthday party compared to the ruckus made if Obama is ousted becaue of a discrepancy.
Also, the fact that the Supremes have decided to look at this again and again rather than just dismiss the folks bringing the petition as a bunch of nutjobs says that something is afloat.
I am willing to bet that the red states will enact legislation that **all** candidate must show proof of citizen status before the name is entered on the ballot.
If this happens, Obama will develop a vague health problem,
***Yup. I think I’ll submit that as an Intrade contract.
What are you trying to imply, that black people will riot and murder if the affirmative action candidate is not seated regardless of ineligibility? ... Think about hwta you’re accusing. Do you think the majority of black people are criminal and would resort to criminal behavior if they don’t get their way regardless of the Constitution??
Friday, January 9, 2009
Berg v. Obama at Supreme Court Conference Today
As soon as I hear something on today’s scheduled conference at the United States Supreme Court for Berg v. Obama, I’ll post it in this space. Of course, word of the court’s determination as to Philip Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari may very well not come until Monday.
Regardless, check back here from time to time for news. As soon as I know something, you’ll know something.
— Jeff
11:45am
Until we know anything further—that is, until any result is reflected on the docket or by any of the contacts that I trust—please think twice about subscribing to blanket assertions with regard to the disposition of this matter. Of course, the odds against the Supreme Court granting the petition for certiorari in this case, or in any case for that matter, are longer than long so the unsubstantiated rumors of either denial or acceptance should be treated as just that — rumors founded in safe guesses.
Furthermore, with regard to the rumors swirling around as to a unanimous denial, please remember that generally it’s only in the rare case of a dissent as to the Court’s decision on a petition for certiorari that the actual voting result will be released.
12:45pm
I spoke with Philip Berg a few minutes ago. He said that he was realistic but hopeful, that he had a feeling that the Court would take the case “because, perhaps, they’re seeing just how much it matters to the American people.”
Berg also referred to the current controversy surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris to Barack Obama’s vacant seat in the U.S. Senate as a timely bonus, mentioning that it was nice to hear Sen. Harry Reid and others earlier this week talk about how the Senate retains the right to ascertain the qualifications of Burris.
“All this talk about the Constitution and qualifications to serve can only help,” Berg said, “though in the end it will come down to the Constitution itself. I’m hoping that the Justices will see that upholding the Constitution may not always be easy, but outweighs any outside considerations when it comes to the welfare of the United States of America.”
2:15pm
Berg v. Obama is not among today’s list of orders, though nothing new has appeared on the docket. Make of that what you will.
Posted by Jeff Schreiber
I’ll let you come to your own conclusions. Let’s not put all the focus on just black people-—all those white socialists will want to get in on the riots as well.
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.