Posted on 11/28/2008 12:57:36 PM PST by jay1949
The question of Barack Obama’s citizenship, and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, has become the election-year issue that will not die. Quite a few Obama opponents are holding on to the eligibility issue as the last chance to keep him out of the White House. They have placed their faith in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, and particularly the Berg lawsuit; but it will turn out that such faith is misplaced.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericansentinel.com ...
Incorrect! When Obama is ruled ineligible, it’s like he never ran and the Electoral Vote goes to McCain 538 - 0.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
“This article is an attempt to pressure the Supreme Nine not to get involved.” I am flattered that you think that the Supreme Court would pay any attention to my post; I suspect that they will not.
*************************************************
I went back and did read more ,,, waste of time ,, the article mischaracterizes quite a lot and shows areas of profound ignorance... drivel..
Regular citizens don’t have a right to sue Obama over this. OK. Alan Keyes is not a regular citizen because he was directly affected by this as a candidate. He is suing, too.
Obama should forget procedure and show the birth certificate today.
Now that would be a “Boom Cha Ca La Ca!”
If an entire battalion refused deployment that would be an especially big Constitutional “BOOM”!
All free people have to preserve their freedom, it will be constantly attacked, or it will be taken away from them and they will live as a slave. Churchill’s words come to mind (the three phases of war) you can fight when you are virtually assured victory, or you will fight when victory is in doubt, the last option is when victory is not possible (live free or die was once more than a state motto). The first two phases can be (and should be) political in nature, the last can be only resistance (violent or nonviolent) which will assure ones death or incarceration. Each individual, and the people as a whole, have to decide the value of their freedom and what is necessary to safeguard it.
I find it interesting that your reply goes directly to civil war. Reminds me of the quote about impeachment being the alternative to assignation. The view by a media pundit that assignation was unthinkable and therefore so was impeachment. This person did not understand that laws have to be present/and enforced to not only discourage unlawful acts but make them unnecessary. About your prediction, I regard as having the value of a warm bucket of spit (another quote). I have known Old Sarges and Old Chiefs and you sound like neither.
Oh, please. Which part of the Constitution did I misquote? On which of the dismissal opinions in Hollander and Robinson did I err? This is not an issue which is going to be decided by emotional outpourings. What I predict will happen is exactly this: “But it will never get that far; Berg will get the boot, and the electors will make Obama the actual President-elect on December 15.” If it does not, I will return and abase myself. After I am done dancing around in circles and tossing flowers into the air, of course.
When all of the suits have been dismissed, I suppose.
On your first point, I disagree; I don’t think his status as a candidate will give him standing, and there is still a justiciability problem. On your second point, I completely agree. He should. But evidently Obama has a “you can’t make me” attitude about this.
Sorry, but you are wrong. A similar situation has already taken place in the electoral college, in which one candidate was "ineligible" (I forget whether the candidate died, or what the specific reasons for the ineligibity were), and the electors pledged to him voted for whomever they wished.
And you link has ZERO content relevant to the above situation.
What does it matter this still won’t convince ths hard head democrats. But too bad for them Keyes has ground for his case. And Isn’t the day for the case 12/02/08???
Spot on!
Thanks,
mc
I’ve read the complaint filed in the Keyes suit and, frankly, I believe it will get the boot, too. Keyes certainly has standing to seek a judicial decision on whether he (Keyes) is on or off the ballot, but his standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility pre-election is no greater than yours or mine, which means, zero.
Yeah, I was wondering about this. Didn't the drive-bys consider the fact that their refusal to cover the issue could have a backflash effect when they rudely open the door and letting in the oxygen?
Certain clueless factions of the public are going to whack out hard when this surprise, apparently "coming out of nowhere" suddenly hits them squarely in the face.
Then there will be all the global leftists, ready to propagandize it and affix false blame.
Excellent and cogent summary of the substantive issue in Gore v. Bush. I will add, the vote was 7-2 on that issue, which means that Scalia had conservative, moderate and liberal support for his conclusion. The 5-4 vote came on the procedural question of what to do next - - remand, or call it done. The majority, barely, went for calling it done. That can be argued both ways, but the fact remained that the decision had to be made within the parameters of the Constitution, and calling it done was the only one that fit.
No...I think you might have missed the context of the original post by goldstategop...
My point is that we are either a nation of laws, or we are not.
If we are (as I contend we at least should TRY to be) then we have to adhere to what is outlined in the Constitution, and if it should be changed, there is a lawful way to change it.
goldstategop said we haven’t followed the Constitution for a while, so why start trying now...and that was my response.
Dreamer. They will cover themselves with the same kind of hollow, insincere self-criticism for bias that they published AFTER Obama had won the election.
Then you can’t have known many of either.
You are nothing more than yet another Internet Rambo with delusions of mock heroism, filled with the romantic notions of rebellion against authority.
Face the facts. Conservatism as a political group has been set back forty years, and neither you nor I will see its ascendancy again.
I agree. I think if SCOTUS turns Leo Donofrio’s case away than SCOTUS and the Constitution are no longer relelvant.
SCOTUS & The Constitution will no longer be needed and we can start to prepare for Sharia law like the UK is. I wonder if Ruth bader Ginsberg is well versed in Sharia?
Our new (ineligible) leader can tell us all the beauty of morning Islamic prayers as the most beautiful sound they ever heard.
Am I being a bit over the top? I don’t think so.
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.