Posted on 11/12/2009 12:36:30 PM PST by fours
For the Indiana court to accept the dicta over the actual holding was very bold of them. Their “holding”, IMO, will be challenged in the future.
Apparently so. He’s either a believable witness and Zero is, in fact, homo or bisexual, or he’s lying about everything.
Lefties can’t have it ‘both ways’. Yet still they try.
We don’t need nuts to uphold the constitution. It does fine all bu itself.
So what does a signature have to do with anything?
Isn’t his behavior regarding Fort Hood and, now, bringing a terrorist to NYC for a **civilian** trial proof enough? I think so.
The Founding Fathers were wise to put in that requirement that our president and Commander in Chief be a natural born citizen. We, today, would be wise to abide by it.
Really, you must live in a dream world, hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
Still wondering what your point about the signature was, hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
Why would I? The real question is, are you? Because if Taitz is the best you've got, then you've got nothing.
The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to rule on any of the 7 lawsuits that have reached them concerning Obama’s eligibility. The cases are Berg v Obama, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama et al., Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
Since it only takes four of the nine justices (”the rule of four”) to “grant cert” and agree to hear a lawsuit before the full court, its obvious that even the traditionalists/strick consructionists/conservatives on the court: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and/or Thomas have not been persuaded to take on this issue.
They didn't reject the holding-- nothing they did conflicts with the holding of any SCOTUS decision. They did follow the Supreme Court's dictum, which is generally what lower courts do when there is no binding precedent on point. Not terribly bold of them.
Their “holding”, IMO, will be challenged in the future.
I'm sure it will be challenged in the future, but I strongly doubt it will be rejected by any court.
They didn't reject the holding-- nothing they did conflicts with the holding of any SCOTUS decision. They did follow the Supreme Court's dictum, which is generally what lower courts do when there is no binding precedent on point. Not terribly bold of them.
Their “holding”, IMO, will be challenged in the future.
I'm sure it will be challenged in the future, but I strongly doubt it will be rejected by any court.
“Where can I find a record of really how much Obama has spent? Someone keeps using this as an argument..implying that we are lying...where do I find the proof?”
I asked that question for months. The amount spent is goes up and down and there is never a source. I did read somewhere that Obama campaign funds were used prior to the election and the DOJ defends a sitting president at taxpayer expense. So, perhaps Obama has not spent a cent defending himself.
And "determining" that a child born to an alien parent is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen" came from what SCOTUS holding?
Apparently the real issue, the CONSTITUTION, is NOT important to you???
So like the usurper's ilks and like-minded "workers" here on F.R. it is more important to kill the messenger that the real message, and then spending a fortune of your tax dollars to cover up this political take-over or coup makes a lots of sense? BHO, hmmmm...hmmmm...hmmmm!!!
As I've said several times, there is no SCOTUS holding either way, but there is a strong, well-considered dictum, supported by much historical eveidence, that a child born on U.S. soil to two alien parents is a natural born citizen, and the Indiana court followed that-- which is what any court would do.
Seriously, what do you have?? Not much. You don’t have the supposed smoking gun birth certificate. You have a rather dubious Constitutional interpretation of “Natural Born”. And you have a pathetically inept lawyer.
I wish you had the smoking gun to save the country from this nightmare, but I tend to deal in truth and provable facts, of which, on this issue, you are in short supply.
Deceit is the only way Barry's kneepad sycophancy can cover for their obamessiah. If you contineu to exchange posts with obamanoids, they will repeat the same lies they've used, deceive readers int he same ways, and ridicule Barry's opposition. Some of these scum have even admitted that this kneepadding they engage in is a primary source of amusement for them. Think of how twisted that is!
That is my understanding as well. His campaign paid 1.7 million to Perkins & Cole for a variety of legal services during the campaign, among those services was legal advice and defense for eligibility lawsuits, IIRC. Now as President, the taxpayers pick up the check via the DOJ.
The 1.7 million figure is solid, I understand. But it is for a variety of legal services and not all directed towards “hiding the birth certificate” as some try to characterize it. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some ‘wink-wink, nudge-nudge’ over-billing as it was campaign cash and not a dime out of BHO’s pocket.
Tatze isn’t baiting anyone...I’ve gotten similar treatment.
While there are some possible eligibility issues, re: his Indonesian residence and whether he held/holds “dual citizenship” - the birth certificate thing in and of itself is a ridiculous wild goose chase.
Where we really need to focus, IMHO, is on his involvement with the election side of ACORN.
I meant I’ve gotten similar treatment when I’ve suggested that the “birthers” make the conservative movement look bad.
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.