Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitutional crisis looming over Obama's birth location
World Net Daily ^ | 11/14/08 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 11/14/2008 7:05:09 PM PST by solfour

The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.

The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alankeyes; alinsky; antichrist; ayers; bc; birth; birthcertificate; border; certifigate; choomgang; citizenship; colb; communism; crime; crisis; democrats; dohrn; dunham; electiom; election; electoralcollege; foreigner; fraud; giveitup; illegalalien; immigration; kenya; keyes; law; letitgoalready; makeitstop; naturalborn; news; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamabinlyin; obamagate; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; odinga; pipedream; president; socialism; unitedstates; war; worldnetdaily; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 2,501-2,502 next last
To: JSteff

Obviously I was speaking of before a new president is sworn in not impeaching one since Cheney will not be President of the Senate on January 22. And I was speaking of what is called for under the Constitution a document not meant for gutless cowards and immoral crooks.

But even the Treason media will not be able to ignore this much longer even if to ridicule it. Nor can they pin it on Republicans since they have not been carrying the ball here.

421 posted on 11/15/2008 12:24:10 AM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

Well, congratulate us in January. Knowing the Democrat Speaker as I do, who has been in office since 1974 and Speaker nearly 2 decades, he isn’t going to gracefully stand aside and he may try to pick off some RINOs (despite claims we have all the members supporting the GOP candidate). RINOs being the most treacherous breed (essentially, I consider them to be Democrat agents), they may try to keep the Dem minority in power.

We won a majority in the Senate 4 years ago, but the Dems retained control because 2 “R’s” voted for the Democrat Senate Speaker (for reasons a bit complicated to go into at this time). The Speaker, also holding office as Lieutenant Governor (the only such setup in any legislative body in the country), had held the office since 1971 (the longest serving legislative leader of any state in U.S. history) and decided to turn Dem partisan after playing fair with us for years, and in his mid 80s, he was clearly feeble and incompetent, and was “presiding” at a time numerous members of the Senate were being indicted and sent to prison.

In any event, it took a Democrat member of that body, sick of seeing such gross incompetence (the party even refused to replace the 86-year old in a party caucus and renominated him again for an unprecedented 19th term as Speaker - which pushed the Senator over the edge), to finally break the logjam and elect a Republican as Speaker (although we had a one-seat majority, one single RINO was going to vote for the Dem, but when she rendered his vote moot, he irritatingly cast it for the Republican, and then switched to a “Jim Jeffords” Independent — and we voted him out on Tuesday, so no backstabbers will be in the Senate in January).

The Democrats were so outraged at that lady Senator, that when she won a narrow renomination this year, the state party stripped her of the nomination (claiming “Republicans voted for her !”) and replaced her with the loser. She tried to run a write-in candidacy, but it’s very hard to do. The GOP leadership may install her in the seat in January anyway since she was duly renominated and there was no opposition on the ballot in November. That’s the kind of bold leadership we need to see by our people. What we’re scared to do, the Democrats don’t hesistate for a moment.

422 posted on 11/15/2008 12:24:28 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
He isn’t releasing it, in my opinion, so that this kind of stuff can drag on and on and on...and when he finally releases it, and proves he is a citizen, then ALL THE LEGITIMATE CRITICISM of Hussein will be afterwards effectively ignored.

I think you're wrong because in light of the information not being released, it makes Obama look like he's actively hiding information. I don't think that if Republicans are wrong that they will lose all power to level criticism. His apparent secrecy could be criticized.

423 posted on 11/15/2008 12:25:53 AM PST by TheThinker (It is the natural tendency of government to gravitate towards tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Yes. Sadly, there are many blacks that think Alan Keyes and men like him are “sellouts”.

424 posted on 11/15/2008 12:29:28 AM PST by Pinkbell (Liberals are only tolerant of those with whom they agree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

I agree 100%.

425 posted on 11/15/2008 12:30:47 AM PST by Pinkbell (Liberals are only tolerant of those with whom they agree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

That’s amazing that he was able to get his name on the ballot. If he’s inelligible, then his name has no business being on the ballot.

426 posted on 11/15/2008 12:35:50 AM PST by Pinkbell (Liberals are only tolerant of those with whom they agree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: votelife

“a friend of mine says that if Obama’s mother is a US citizen it doesn’t matter where he was this true?”

Thats not exactly true - that is just what the Immigration and Naturalization ACT (INA), as amended, currently states.

I do not know if the current statute has ever been tested at SCOTUS.

The Nationality Act of 1940, amended 1952, was law at the time of Obama’s birth - and cases like Obama’s circumstances were tested at SCOTUS.

At the time of his birth, the law required the U.S. citizen (Obama’s mother) to have resided in the United States for ten (10) years prior to his birth - which she did. However, five (5) of those years had to be after the age of fourteen (14) - which she DID NOT.

Obama’s mother was eighteen (18) when she gave birth. If she gave birth in Kenya - Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, a citizen by birth, or a citizen at birth, according to the laws in effect at the time. But, he might automatically be a naturalized citizen at birth - even if he is, he is ineligible to be POTUS.

Now, comes the hard part ... The INA has been amended many times since then.

The amendments usually contained a clause that stated that they DID NOT retroactively apply to previous citizenship status.

Can you imagine if a naturalized citizen (by birth) in 1940 was suddenly a natural born citizen. His children (if naturalized) would be natural born, and their children too.

Any court cases that were decided on the basis of citizenship (deportations, etc.) would have to be reversed ... what a nightmare.

Anyway, that was the justification for non-retroactive application of the INA. It applied GOING FORWARD.

However, in recent years, revisions to the INA HAVE NOT included this non-retroactive clause.

Therefore, per the law on the books at THIS time, Obama might be able to claim natural born citizenship status - even if he was born on the moon.

The current law states:

“... (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years ...” (United States Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub-Chapter III, Part I, Section 1401, Paragraph g).

You can clearly see that the time requirements have changed from ten (10) years to five (5) years presence in the United States and from five (5) years to two (2) years after the age of fourteen (14).

Now, current law DOES have a non-retroactive clause, but it states:

“Nothing in this subchapter shall be applied in contravention of the provisions of any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party and which has been ratified by the Senate before December 25, 1952 ... United States Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub-Chapter III, Part III, Section 1489).

I assume that this means that it applies to ALL of Sub-Chapter III and NOT to just Part III. However, I am NOT sure. Also, I do NOT know what (if any) conventions and/or treaties were in effect before December 25,1952.

AND, like I said, I DO NOT know if the current law (with its changed requirements and NO non-retroactive citizenship clause) has EVER been tested by SCOTUS.

Quite a mouthful, I know ... and it is as clear as mud ...

427 posted on 11/15/2008 12:43:43 AM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

April Lexington wrote “Wanna bet? I’ll bet you an Obama coin (in full color, yet) that he is disqualified or forced to resign.”

I’d love to take that bet, but my conscience prevents me from stealing.

As I said before, Obama is the POTUS. Am I happy? NO!!! Do we have to deal with it? YES!! How? We wait for him to violate his Oath of Office, and act accordingly.

428 posted on 11/15/2008 12:50:24 AM PST by Cyberrat (Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

All this as an intellectual exercise is absolutely fascinating. I am thrilled that so many scenarios were dreamed up so long ago and prepared for. I love the minds of all the constitutional scholars, professional and amateur, here on FR figuring it all out.

But bottom line, would someone actually dare to run for President while not being qualified? Wouldn’t he know he would be found out at some point, and create some kind of crisis for the country? I suppose sheer hubris could lead someone to believe he would not be caught, but it could be filed under the slogan “Put America Last,” because if Barack Obama did just that, he would cause such upset among everyone, especially all of the people who are so happy now that he’s won the election.

I am troubled that the man would not at this point just release his birth certificate to stop all this talk and these lawsuits. I still think he is probably natural born, but there must be something on that certificate that he would rather we not see.

429 posted on 11/15/2008 12:51:18 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

“It just seems too coincidental that he chooses a running partner from CA with the most electorates, is AA, and then “files at the last minute”.......Someone knows something and they have gotten Keyes involved......Don’t think he would have joined in if there wasn’t something to it.”

Interesting questions.....I guess I wasn’t paying attention, didn’t know Keyes filed so late.

This just keeps getting better and better. Maybe my prayers will be answered.

430 posted on 11/15/2008 12:55:23 AM PST by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

“The slate of electors could vote for whomever they wish.
Absolutely false. They have to pick from the top 3 remaining.....and the implication is the top 3 who actually received Electoral votes, but only McCain (other than Obama) actually won ellectoral votes. Therefore: McCain, with Biden as VP, would be the only possible outcome.”

You are correct, IMHO, but by a slightly different method:

There are 538 + 538 = 1076 possible elctors for the DEMS and GOP.

Obama/Biden is ahead at this point something like 350-188. 350 Obama/Biden electors, 188 McCain/Palin electors.

If Obama is DQ’d by SCOTUS, then HIS 350 electors would be DQ’d and replaced with McCain’s 350 electors.

Those 350 electors, along with McCain’s 188 original electors would presumably vote 538-0 for McCain.

Now, Biden IS qualified and (presumably) would make the case to SCOTUS that his election was valid. If so, the 350 original Obama/Biden electors would be able to vote for him and the vote for VP would be 350-188 for Biden.

Therfore, in an unusual twist, a total of 888 electoral voters would have voted.

538 McCain/Palin electors and 350 Obama/Biden electors (voting only in the kewpie prize category - that is, VP).

431 posted on 11/15/2008 12:57:32 AM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: aWolverine
I think any public questioning will cause massive rioting in the cities. Maybe this is what is wanted so that there will be an excuse for an all out hostile revolution.

I am trying to see a downside to this scenario.

Although it would be a lot of fun for us to get to directly and decisively deal with the trash in the streets, the resulting heavy handed domestic police and military response against all citizens (including law abiding legal gun owning ones) would probably be a downside...

432 posted on 11/15/2008 1:05:26 AM PST by Screaming_Gerbil (The light at the end of the tunnel could be an oncoming train...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: LittleMoe

Kevin James on 870AM mentioned all the lawsuits this evening. He’s on from 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM M-F and they have online streaming.

I missed most of the show tonight but I did hear him take a call on the subject with one minute remaining. He let the caller speak about it for 30 sec, then he spent the last 30 sec on it.

He’s an ex Federal prosecutor and I think he’s interested.

433 posted on 11/15/2008 1:12:44 AM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: antceecee

SCOTUS has power to order FED Marshalls and FBI?

Wouldn’t that have to come from the Executive Branch - Bush?

Not exactly sure - but someone’s gotta do it ... but I don’t want a minimum wage for-hire security firm to do it!

434 posted on 11/15/2008 1:14:30 AM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

You are very bright.

435 posted on 11/15/2008 1:21:03 AM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Which David? and where would one contribute to this noble, the MOST noble patriotic cause?

436 posted on 11/15/2008 1:24:26 AM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

“... am troubled that the man would not at this point just release his birth certificate to stop all this talk and these lawsuits. I still think he is probably natural born, but there must be something on that certificate that he would rather we not see.”

Well, either he is - or he isn’t eligible.

I would not have put so much time and research into this unless there was a basis for reasonable suspicion about his eligibility.

If he is found legit - good for him, he is our POTUS. If not - he has got to go.

As for his hubris - tough sh*t! No one forced him to run. You give up the luxury of privacy on your BC - even IF there is something embarassing on it.


If you wanna run with the BIG dawgs - you gotta learn to piss in the TALL grass ...

BTW: George Noury just mentioned the controversy on Coast To Coast AM - said he is monitoring, but not gonna cover it unless SCOTUS grants Cert. If they do, he’s gonna be on it like white on rice ...

437 posted on 11/15/2008 1:28:04 AM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
It will be a test. The response to the Supremes will guide their next step. If they give a middle finger response, the Supremes obviously face an affront to their dignity and high office. If they give a cryptic response, as previously in Hawaii ("It contains something really embarrassing!"), the Supremes curiosity will be piqued. If they produce a bona-fide vault birth certificate, Justice Roberts bangs his gavel and bellows, "Adjourned!" (or "Case closed!")

It's the O-team's move.

438 posted on 11/15/2008 1:30:08 AM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: danamco


439 posted on 11/15/2008 1:36:52 AM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: solfour
There is nobody left in our government with the spine to fight for the Constitution, least of all in the judiciary.

Oaths of office are meaningless and empty when nobody even cares what the answer to this issue is, but rather it's viewed as a silly and obtuse waste of time.

Come to think of it, more and more Americans view the Constitution the same way: an obtuse waste of time.

440 posted on 11/15/2008 1:37:37 AM PST by TChris (So many useful idiots...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 2,501-2,502 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
Topics · Post Article

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