Posted on 02/17/2011 1:04:49 PM PST by rxsid
"Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.
At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.
..."
From: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The links don’t go through as I just posted.
Type the following in the SCOTUS search
Barack Obama
http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx
Barry Soetoro
http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
Rehearing? So it's been turned down at least once already?
You wanted proof of Obama not being born in Hawaii, here it is every bit as reliable as his pdf COLB.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32674014/Obama-Kenyan-Birth-Certificate-Hospital-Version-From-Lucas-Smith
Bookmarked; thanks.
I can’t remember what the name of it was, but I had found a reference in a legal textbook that said that if there are 7 or less justices taking part in a conference it only takes 3 votes to accept the case. And IIRC the chief justice also has discretion to allow cases to go forward even without the full number normally required.
The big question here really is whether Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves. The dems may wish they hadn’t been hounding Thomas to recuse himself from the healthcare reform case, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that Sotomayor and Kagan have a HUGE personal and financial interest in an Obama eligibility case.
Maybe what we need to be doing is contacting our Congress-critters and asking them to demand that Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves on this case.
It might not hurt to register to begin petitioning for state ballot initiatives that would grant any registered voter in the state legal standing to challenge the eligibility of anybody whose name is printed on the state ballot. If SCOTUS knew that the issue is eventually GOING to be in front of them, they may realize that resistance is futile. Those of us who love the Constitution will NOT be silenced forever.
Sun Yat Sen got a COLB? Really? Is there any documentation of this?
Federal Judge John Roll is the only judge in the Ninth Circuit Obama would have had to worry about possibly giving a correct ruling on the constitutionality of AZ’s eligibility bill if it was enacted.
Abercrombie started his rampage against “birthers” around Christmas time because he wanted the issue settled before the upcoming state eligibility bills caused a problem for Obama. The only 2 states that for sure were going to have eligibility bills introduced in 2011 were Texas and Arizona.
After the Tucson shooting where Gabrielle Giffords was the claimed target for assassination by a young man very familiar with mind control techniques, Giffords is (thankfully) doing well and should be fine. Judge John Roll, on the other hand, was hit by a shot to the aorta and bled to death within 7 seconds.
Whether accurate or fake, Ulsterman’s “White House Insider” told Ulsterman to drop the eligibility issue because Obama’s people are very worried about it and this is not small-town cop type stuff but the big guns. I believe the quote was, “God help us all.”
Not saying anything in particular, just taking note of a few facts.
InspectorSmith (22 hours ago) I (Lucas) have spent the last two months going through what may possibly be compared to a living hell or the likes of such a place known as ‘Hell’.
From some point in mid December thru on or about Christmas Eve (12.24.2010) I was held in Mexico against my will. Upon release (or dump) I managed to travel a distance (much on foot) in a northerly direction until I reach the US Border.
While in Mexico against my will I was interrogated on a round the clock basis and bombarded with questions regarding the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and questions regarding the hospital's staff. At times my arm was pumped intravenously with some sort of solution and at times I was in a state of semi consciousness.
Subpoena his passport! (I think it says “Indonesia” on the front)
like I said the smith kenya bc is just as valid as the pdf COLB from “Hawaii”....unless authenticated it means next to nothing.
It’s a good thing the founding fathers werent torn.
Since you apparently are trying to denigrate the BC from as you put it “well-known charlatan” Smith, how should we value the COLB put up by con man, liar in chief, charlatan and crook Obama?
Like I said equal weight.
Stunner indeed! Either they are finally taking this seriously or they are just backtracking to cover their political arses. Time will tell...
BTW...thanks for the PINGS! I do appreciate them.
A US Supreme Court Justice can be impeached and removed from office. They serve under "times of good behavior". The US House of Representative can draw up Articles of Impeachment which would include High Crimes and Misdemeanors for refusing to obey their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." If they vote to impeach the trial would go to The US Senate who would try the justice and if convicted would be removed.
Since the Supremes potentially could look away from this case while serious evidence is available to show that the current president has admitted he is not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen requires two US citizen parents, Obama only had one. If he was born on the soil of Hawaii which was a state in August 1961, his mother was unable to transfer natural born status to her son as she had not attained the required age of 19 to do so.
Under “Vattel’s Law of Nations” ( which our Founding Fathers used in defining “Natural-Born” Citizen). The” Country of the Fathers” is therefor that of the Children; and these become true citizens by their Tacit consent.
So Vattel's book was referenced in the Constitution? Was it made clear to all the signers and those ratifying the constitution that natural born citizens (which happens to be in lower case in the Constitution) was referring to Vattel's definition rather than the more obvious definition of someone who became a citizen at the time of their birth?
I say,that, in order to “be of the country”, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a “Citizen”; for, if he is born there of a “foreigner”, it will only be the place of his birth and “Not” his Country!
So what would be the citizenship of someone who's father is unknown? Would the be in perpetual limbo? An illegal alien wherever they might go?
If Obama was born outside of this nation according to our laws at the time, he would not have been a citizen at birth, and therefore wouldn't be a natural born citizen. However, it does not seem clear to me that those signing or ratifying our Constitution had all read Vattel or understood that term to be as he defined it.
look up stateless person and foundling
I just went to Bing and typed in ‘Sun Yat-Sen Hawaiian COLB’ - an embarrassment of riches popped up.
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.