Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, AGAIN !!!
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 18, 2010 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 12/20/2010 8:39:35 AM PST by Robert Drobot

"....According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

"....one judge has ruled that the military should resolve the question over Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief while the result from the recent Lakin court martial was that Judge Denise Lind refused even to allow his defense arguments, evidence and witnesses in her courtroom, essentially withholding related due process and discovery procedures.

Conflict of interest

"In my opinion they [Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, both appointed to the bench by Obama] should recuse themselves," she said. "However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases."

Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.

Kerchner brought forward the same concerns.

"The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and they did not recuse themselves even though they should have!" he wrote.

But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama's legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud.

"Legitimacy is a theoretical question," Taitz told WND earlier. "This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted."

Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that the Social Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.

"It cannot have been legally obtained," said Taitz.

Her brief asserts that Obama's Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.

"This is evidence of fraud," Taitz said.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: certifigate; conspiracy; crime; fraud; naturalborncitizen; taitz; traitor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
Statute law, case law and most importantly, the Constitution - the bedrock of American law - no longer have any standing in what has become an Alice in Wonderland insanity of law and equity. The entire governing system is acting in concert to deny American Cittizens control of their governance in order to keep in hiden a despicable and monumental conspiratorial fraud - Barry ( Soros ) Soetoro. Today, we are informed the social security number now used by Soetoro was actually issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890. Further, “....The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and they did not recuse themselves even though they should have!”....” !!! All awhile these traitor robes turn their backs on their oaths to God and country. We are living the infamous Chinese curse, ‘May you live in interesting times.’
1 posted on 12/20/2010 8:39:46 AM PST by Robert Drobot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

2 posted on 12/20/2010 8:52:21 AM PST by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

Why is it that so many Americans have not yet realized that obama is above the Law, The only hope we have is that the military will some day do their duty and remove him since congress will not. OF course this is highly unlikely since the Lakin kangaroo trial.


3 posted on 12/20/2010 8:55:18 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

Hope springs eternal!


4 posted on 12/20/2010 9:05:06 AM PST by SERE_DOC (My Rice Krispies told me to stay home & clean my weapons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Pardon me, but doesn't that second comma pervert the intent - and meaning - of the sentence?

5 posted on 12/20/2010 9:10:42 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
That comma does seem to be poorly chosen -- but if we place emphasis on that comma, then I think the document means you have to be a citizen to be president. Which means Schwarzenegger could run.

No. The accepted meaning is that only an NBC can be president, or someone born in this country before the Constitution was ratified. Merely being a citizen is not sufficient.

6 posted on 12/20/2010 9:15:37 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

SCOTUS will never hear a case brought by Taitz.


7 posted on 12/20/2010 9:23:07 AM PST by FS11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERE_DOC

Yeh look for this to get tossed about 2PM today. Just like all the others.


8 posted on 12/20/2010 9:36:16 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

How do we apply public pressure for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves? Do we need to try to get our Congress-critters to mention the “impeachment” word? Do we need to write letters to the editor? Have demonstrations? What do we need to do? It is unconscionable for Obama’s stooges to be able to keep the court from hearing a case on whether they get to keep their jobs.

Who’s the head of the House Judiciary Committee?


9 posted on 12/20/2010 9:40:18 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Lamar Smith, Republican from San Antonio, TX, will chair the House Judiciary Committee.


10 posted on 12/20/2010 10:05:54 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FS11
SCOTUS will never hear a case brought by Taitz.

There you go, crushing everyone's hopes and dreams.

11 posted on 12/20/2010 10:07:42 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

Those voters who voted for Obama should get ready for the military draft because there is going to be a problem of recruitment and retention of military personal since DADT was repealed... Where’s the birth certificate !!!


12 posted on 12/20/2010 10:10:24 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

How do we apply public pressure for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves? Do we need to try to get our Congress-critters to mention the “impeachment” word? Do we need to write letters to the editor? Have demonstrations? What do we need to do? It is unconscionable for Obama’s stooges to be able to keep the court from hearing a case on whether they get to keep their jobs.

Who’s the head of the House Judiciary Committee?


For a Cert Conference, only four Justices are required to agree to hear an appeal before the full court (”The Rule of Four”), therefore Kagan and Sotomayor are irrelevant to whether the Supreme Court cert conference will grant the petition for a hearing from Orly Taitz. Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas can provide the votes needed to accept this appeal.
For any Supreme Court issue or appeal, recusal is only an ethical decision of the individual Justice, there is no law and no pressure from a separate branch of government that can force recusal of a Justice.

Here’s a link to an article on recent recusals by Supreme Court Justices:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us/16bar.html

I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would recuse himself from Obama eligibility appeals because he swore Obama in as President and invited Obama to visit with the Justices at the Supreme Court as President-Elect.


13 posted on 12/20/2010 10:12:16 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
I've already pointed this out on a thread posted over the weekend, but this has nothing to do with Obama's eligibility.

This is over the $20K that the nutcase Orly Taitz was fined by the judge in one of her previous filings.

14 posted on 12/20/2010 10:14:48 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies. Plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Got the pimp photo ready?


15 posted on 12/20/2010 10:20:31 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (Don't wish doom on your enemies. Plan it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

funny, that is the first thing that I said when they passed the Sodomy Brigade Law, NO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE will ever do anything with regards to The Usurper in Chief, it is up to the STATES and THE PEOPLE, and it just might come to that.


16 posted on 12/20/2010 10:35:03 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
" funny, that is the first thing that I said when they passed the Sodomy Brigade Law, NO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE will ever do anything with regards to The Usurper in Chief, it is up to the STATES and THE PEOPLE, and it just might come to that. " ....

When push comes to shove, it will be the gays in the military who will obey orders to shoot on unarmed citizens.. mostly Christians ....
17 posted on 12/20/2010 10:46:00 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

When have you ever heard of a leftist recusing themselves? The corrupt jackals that they are, they can’t admit when they have a possible conflict of interest.


18 posted on 12/20/2010 12:02:57 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, what are you hiding? Release your Birth Certificate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

When have you ever heard of a leftist recusing themselves? The corrupt jackals that they are, they can’t admit when they have a possible conflict of interest.


Elena Kagen must not be a leftist then because she has recused herself on more appeals than she has heard. She has recused herself on any case that she acted on as Solicitor General.
Her latest recusal was on an appeal on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303890.html


19 posted on 12/20/2010 12:26:00 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
...crushing everyone's hopes and dreams.

Your choice of pronouns includes you.

Typical dumb-assed Obot.

20 posted on 12/20/2010 12:32:49 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

I’ve already pointed this out on a thread posted over the weekend, but this has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility.
This is over the $20K that the nutcase Orly Taitz was fined by the judge in one of her previous filings.

14 posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 12:14:48 PM by JustaDumbBlonde


Correct.


21 posted on 12/20/2010 12:57:15 PM PST by FS11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

What’s more troubling is that the Supremes might try and read the 14th Amendment to say that it somehow modifies Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution so that any citizen (natural born or naturalized) is qualified to run for POTUS. I have seen this argument being made already.


22 posted on 12/20/2010 1:23:54 PM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
It reminds me of a line from Ray Steven's “The Blue Cyclone”.

Okay punk, here we go again. Seems to me that some guys never learn.”

23 posted on 12/20/2010 1:36:15 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I'm particularly surprised not a single FReeper expressed alarm about the social security fraud perpetrated by Soetoro.
24 posted on 12/20/2010 7:21:15 PM PST by Robert Drobot (Qui tacet consentit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I'm particularly surprised not a single FReeper expressed alarm about the social security fraud perpetrated by Soetoro.
25 posted on 12/20/2010 7:22:35 PM PST by Robert Drobot (Qui tacet consentit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Roberts’ job doesn’t depend on Obama. There is a clear financial interest for Kagan and Sotomayor. Roberts actually sold some of his shares in a company so he would not have a financial conflict of interest in a case. Maybe Kagan and Sotomayor could just quit or not accept a paycheck so they won’t have a financial conflict of interest.

This is sort of like Al Capone being able to decide whether the court would hear his tax evasion case. If these gals don’t recuse themselves it only shows what a bad idea it was to put them in a position where honor rather than threats is supposed to motivate them. It makes absolutely no sense ethically for Kagan to recuse herself on cases where she was minimally involved in preparing a government response earlier but to NOT recuse herself when her own job is on the line.

But then, this is the gal who interfered with the court testimony of two different medical groups about partial-birth abortion, in order to get Clinton’s wishes to come true - the science be damned, the people who would be hurt be damned, and ethics be damned.

What ever made anybody think she would all of a sudden get some ethics, as opposed to doing CYA for her boss, as she’s done before?

BTW, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then do you think it is a good thing if SCOTUS justices are beyond the influence of anybody and beyond the constraints of the law? Would you say that the very real threat of impeachment is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system, given the corrupting nature of absolute power?


26 posted on 12/20/2010 7:55:57 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Roberts’ job doesn’t depend on Obama. There is a clear financial interest for Kagan and Sotomayor. Roberts actually sold some of his shares in a company so he would not have a financial conflict of interest in a case. Maybe Kagan and Sotomayor could just quit or not accept a paycheck so they won’t have a financial conflict of interest.

This is sort of like Al Capone being able to decide whether the court would hear his tax evasion case. If these gals don’t recuse themselves it only shows what a bad idea it was to put them in a position where honor rather than threats is supposed to motivate them. It makes absolutely no sense ethically for Kagan to recuse herself on cases where she was minimally involved in preparing a government response earlier but to NOT recuse herself when her own job is on the line.

But then, this is the gal who interfered with the court testimony of two different medical groups about partial-birth abortion, in order to get Clinton’s wishes to come true - the science be damned, the people who would be hurt be damned, and ethics be damned.

What ever made anybody think she would all of a sudden get some ethics, as opposed to doing CYA for her boss, as she’s done before?

BTW, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then do you think it is a good thing if SCOTUS justices are beyond the influence of anybody and beyond the constraints of the law? Would you say that the very real threat of impeachment is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system, given the corrupting nature of absolute power?


Thus far Kagan and Sotomayor have recused themselves on many cases. For example, Kagan has recused herself on every appeal that involved her duties as Solicitor General.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303890.html

Yes, I agree that the threat of impeachment hanging over the head of any federal elected or appointed official is a good check on the exercise of power but it is practically impossible to get 67 votes in the US Senate to remove an official.
For example, at the current moment, all of the RINOs and moderates plus 20 Democrats would be needed to remove Obama via impeachment.


27 posted on 12/20/2010 8:40:23 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
That is pleasantly surprising. My next question, was the outcome in doubt where her few would have lost?

i.e. was her vote even relevant?

28 posted on 12/21/2010 6:19:04 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Hey, Barack "Hubris" Obama, what are you hiding? Release your Birth Certificate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

impeachment impossible? maybe! If it ever proven that obama was born in Kenya and got into the White House by fraud and deception,the politicians in Washington will desert his ship like the rats they are. They will fall over each other in the process of voting him out of office.


29 posted on 12/21/2010 7:52:21 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

impeachment impossible? maybe! If it ever proven that obama was born in Kenya and got into the White House by fraud and deception,the politicians in Washington will desert his ship like the rats they are. They will fall over each other in the process of voting him out of office.


I think it would be Richard Nixon/Watergate all over again if that were to be proven. Obama’s operatives would do a count of the votes in the Senate among the Democrats and if there were enough Democrat votes when added to the Republican votes to remove him, he would resign ahead of the impeachment trial. Clinton did not resign under impeachment because he knew that the Democrats were going to hold firm and not vote to remove him plus he got ten Republican votes on the perjury charge and five Republican votes on the obstruction of justice charge.

The way to gather that evidence from Kenya or anywhere else is just like they did in Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, CIA Leaks, and the Savings and Loan Scandal, a Grand Jury investigation. These endless civil lawsuits that go nowhere are not the way to gather evidence to remove a president from office via impeachment or resignation.


30 posted on 12/21/2010 9:12:28 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

That’s because it’s a made up issue by a kooky dentist.


31 posted on 12/21/2010 9:31:04 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

That is pleasantly surprising. My next question, was the outcome in doubt where her few would have lost?
i.e. was her vote even relevant?


Both Kagan and Sotomayor are usually in the minority along with Bader-Ginsberg and Breuer on ideological issues but there’s no way to know ahead of time when she has recused herself, how the other Justices were going to vote on any particular appeal.


32 posted on 12/21/2010 9:34:20 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

The Constitution being held in contempt, injures and imparts standing to every citizen of this nation.

Considering the above, Can one of you with a law degree, tell me why or why not, and please elucidate clearly.


33 posted on 12/21/2010 12:05:49 PM PST by W. W. SMITH (Islam is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
"However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases."

That's silly. How could they recuse themselves from a case that hasn't been heard?

34 posted on 12/21/2010 1:40:04 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
"....it's a madee up issue..."

Your source please?

35 posted on 12/21/2010 2:56:38 PM PST by Robert Drobot (Qui tacet consentit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Sorry.......

"....it's a made up issue..."

Your source please?

36 posted on 12/21/2010 2:58:18 PM PST by Robert Drobot (Qui tacet consentit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

You ain’t no lawyer are ya.


37 posted on 12/21/2010 2:59:42 PM PST by Robert Drobot (Qui tacet consentit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

Well, welcome to last year.

Taitz took liberties with a cursory search made by to some private investigators named Mr. Neil Sankey and Ms. Susan Daniels. (ref: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28417862/Orly-Taitz-Reply-to-Social-Security-Administration)

You can see the list here: http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20976501-Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers.pdf

You can read one take on the issue here: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/17/fact-check-neil-sankey-barack-obama-27-numbers/

I know nothing about that website. I’m just using them because I found the list there. They may be a bunch of commies for all I know. But they seem to have this basic story correct.

Anyways... In that pile o’ data there was this:

Name – OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
Gender – Male
Street Address – 365 BROADWAY APT B1
City, State, Zip – SOMERVILLE MA 02145-2440
Probable Current Address – No
Telephone –
Telephone Accountholder –
Social Security – 042-68-xxxx
Age – 119
Date of Birth – 1890
Deceased – No
Date Record Verified –

Taitz made no attempt to investigate this stuff or verify any of it. She just took their bulk search results as gospel and ran with it.

This issue went into the dust bin over a year ago.

Here’s one thread we had on it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2365222/posts

Mnehring probably had the best explanations on that thread.

It’s a fair rule of thumb by now that if Taitz’s name is attached to it, it’s crap.


38 posted on 12/21/2010 9:54:05 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
Welcome to 2006!

We know no more now than we knew then!

(1) Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, as required of Presidential candidates by the COTUS, because his father was a foreigner.

(2) The standard answer to this proposition, given by everyone from the postman to your elected Republican Congressional Representatives, is,

"Well, he was born in Hawaii."

Problem:
Proposition (1) and answer (2) have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

(2-a) There really isn't any proof one way or the other that substantiates his birth in Hawaii, beyond a weird document posted on the internet and the say-so of some Hawaiian officials who refuse to release the documentation upon which they based their statements, which happens to be required by Hawaiian law.

(3) A major difference between now and 2006:
Barack Hussein Obama has left the Senate, and is now the de facto, sitting, President of the United States.

(4)There is no clear mechanism in American Law, Custom, or Tradition for dealing with this situation. At least there is no means of dealing with it that those who might wish to use. In the meantime, teams of well-meaning (one hopes) but rather inept lawyers have not succeeded in getting their cases heard, suffering one dismissal after another on jurisdictional grounds and ironically, the eligibility of their clients to bring suit.

(5)Soon it will be 2012, and if rumors have it, Obama will run again. One governor and one state's attorney general are needed to keep Obama off one state's ballot. Seems simple enough.

39 posted on 12/22/2010 6:36:35 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (America can survive fools in office. It cannot long survive the fools who elect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Kenny,
Knew the comment was yours before seeing the poster's name. It just makes sense. Thanks for adding the humor. Otherwise the situation is a hard pill to swallow. The Constitution has been rent apart and the Congressional little shittes are in the business of staying in business instead of salvaging what is left after the people raped by this lying, piece of crap who has full control. May God judge those who stood by and did nothing for personal gain.
40 posted on 12/22/2010 1:48:06 PM PST by scottiemom ("As a Texas public school teacher, I would highly recommend private school")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Weird is the best word to describe the proffered ‘docs’ and statements by officials to date on Steve Dunham’s (to use just one of his aka’s) birth circumstance and proof of citizenship.

The COLB photo images and the circumstances for their singular unique appearance are weird. The statements by Hawaiian officials are weird for their lack of clarity and supporting records, but also for the active persistence in same obfuscatory effort, up to and including the ‘vexatious requestor’ law. The proof of marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham to Barack Obama is weird for being undocumented and unwitnessed, and inconsistent with timelines described the movements and activities of both persons in the time frame.

The weirdness maximum is what Arthur Conan Doyle called “The dog that didn’t bark.” Why hasn’t anyone in the major media or official government followed up on clear obvious weirdness. If Sarah Palin’s birth legend was as weird it would have been hunted down to every dot of a ‘i’ on every document and every shaky lead would have been chased down.


41 posted on 12/22/2010 2:03:22 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

To me it is a very coherent construction dealing with two seperate and distinct situations.


42 posted on 12/22/2010 2:28:18 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

To me it is a very coherent construction dealing with two seperate and distinct situations.


43 posted on 12/22/2010 2:28:32 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Try looking at it with both commas removed ...

No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Then try looking at it with both commas and one excerpt removed ...

No Person except a natural born Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Then realize that no one living in 1787 is living today.


44 posted on 12/22/2010 3:59:25 PM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I take it as it was written and believing the Founders were men of letters who knew how to construct a sentence using phrases, commas, etc. You are correct to realize a person living in 1787 is not living today. As for me, I believe however, the Constitution is still alive.


45 posted on 12/22/2010 4:24:55 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
We know no more now than we knew then! (1) Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, as required of Presidential candidates by the COTUS, because his father was a foreigner.

If that's in the Constitution, why didn't you know it then?

46 posted on 12/22/2010 4:55:09 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

You can call her a “nutcase” if you like BUT I would stack her credentials up against yours anytime and be happy to see her come out WAY on top!


47 posted on 12/22/2010 5:09:49 PM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Kagen has recused herself in over a dozen cases. There is no reason to recuse until cert is granted,
48 posted on 12/22/2010 9:07:39 PM PST by TNTNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.

She's always been good at getting to the nub of an issue.

49 posted on 12/22/2010 9:09:55 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
We are living the infamous Chinese curse, ‘May you live in interesting times.’

I'm convinced that the courts will not get involved in this case. It's all going to depend on Speaker Boehner once he takes over the House in January. If he subpoenas the appropriate records, we'll have answers. If he doesn't (some folks around here have said Boehner's afraid to subpoena the birth records), then the issue is for all practical purposes dead.

I urge everyone to email Speaker Boehner and demand that he not abandon the constitution. Subpoena all of the birth records!

50 posted on 12/22/2010 9:14:39 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson