Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.
Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The application was to stay the electoral college. You’ll notice docket 08-570, the case against Obama, has not been denied. None of the cases against Obama have been denied.
You said — “Now, did that make it right? NO! In the end, was Gennifer Flowers proven right, along with Paula Jones, who also got no support from the usual suspects quoted above? YES! Is this issue similar in that it can bring down the oncoming president? YES. So what is your FReeping problem?”
Well..., for one thing, you should know (if you’ve been involved in politics) that politics is not about setting moral standards — but more about “getting things done” that the voting public will approve. That’s just politics for you and you can’t make it any different than what it is, if you have a bunch of people “voting” for representatives. That’s what you get when you pull in the “populace” and tell them that they’ve each got a vote... LOL..
If you want moral standards, go to the Bible. That’s where I find them. I also find that the Bible says that the people choose and deserve the fools for leaders that they want. That is probably the case here. It’s not a “moral standard” that you’re going to get out of this “voting” by the populace... You should understand that by now.
SECONDLY — if you look — *very specifically* about *what is wrong* here, you’ll see that it’s *not* Obama that is “wrong”. That may sound strange to hear that — but think about it — what *went wrong*???
The actual *wrong* here — is — the vetting process is deficient and failed us. Obama is not the “wrong” in this matter — but in the spirit of the “founding fathers” — they never depended upon “man” to provide the “right” in the situation — but rather — they depended upon the *process* to provide the right — because they knew that all men are sinful and therefore cannot be depended upon.
THEREFORE, if we *correct the wrong* — we correct the process...
“Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a Kenyan father.
Reacting to Internet-fueled conspiracy theories that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, Hawaiian officials have said they examined the document and have no doubt it is authentic.
“
Its amazing how the AP reporters just make stuff up... both of these statments are NOT TRUE..... If it is true can someone please post a link here so I can read it..... Hawaii officals say they have a valid BC... they don’t say which country its from.
You said — “There is still the problem about the validity of the legality of every Law & Executive Order issued if this should come to pass. But it would appear that every other option is fast closing to us.”
If this were to come to pass, and it would be *history* at that future point in time — it is very well clear to everyone involved (no matter who you are) that you can’t go back in time and “re-run” the whole thing again. So..., in politics, you would simply “let it go” and move on from there...
Justice Anthony Kennedy - the self-appointed most important man in the world.
No sh!t sherlock...no one knows until the eligibility issue is resolved, thats the whole frickin issue. Save the vetting law for another thread, they do nothing to answer the question at hand.
Is he Constitutionally eligible or not?
““Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a Kenyan father.” “Reacting to Internet-fueled conspiracy theories that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, Hawaiian officials have said they examined the document and have no doubt it is authentic.”
‘Its amazing how the AP reporters just make stuff up... both of these statments are NOT TRUE.....’
Unfortunately that’s now typical AP, circa 2008
Lightfoot v Bowen was not related to Berg. That was from Alan Keye’s attorney Orly Taitz. She filed that one separate from the Keyes filing.
You said — “Principle towers over party, politics OR elections. Sheesh.”
Well, no matter how true you think this is (and I’m not really saying that it’s wrong from a legal or moral standpoint) — the whole point of the matter is that you’re talking to yourself, unless you get a mass of people “on board” with you, on these same principles. If you don’t you’re simply “fringe element” with the rest who won’t get on board with you. That’s simply *reality*... unfortunately...
That’s why many here are being portrayed as kooks and “fringe” and conspiracy-minded. You simply haven’t gotten the rest “on board” with you...
AND, by the way, that’s not going to happen in regards to Obama’s qualifications to be President in January. You don’t have the ability or the time to get enough people on board to make any difference at all.
HOWEVER, if it’s not Obama that you’re concerned about — but rather — the *real wrong* here. Then you will have the time and ability to get people “on board” with you. The “real wrong” here is that the “process” of vetting a candidate failed us (and failed the Constitution). That’s the real wrong (not Obama; he’s merely a symptom of the problem...).
So, work on the state legislation to vet candidates and you’ll have the ability and enough time to get people on board to correct the “wrong and deficient process...”
“I have another question: If it’s discovered that Zero is constitutionally ineligible, are all of this Executive efforts thereby invalidated?”
Natural born was clarified already.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
Law of Nations
You said — “Is he Constitutionally eligible or not?”
Answer: you have no legal way to know or prove it...
Next question... ummm..., how about the law for vetting candidates... LOL...
Thanks, Calpernia.
Well..., for one thing, you should know (if you’ve been involved in politics) that politics is not about setting moral standards — but more about “getting things done” that the voting public will approve. That’s just politics for you and you can’t make it any different than what it is, if you have a bunch of people “voting” for representatives. That’s what you get when you pull in the “populace” and tell them that they’ve each got a vote... LOL..
***That entire system is built upon the foundation of the constitution. And then along comes the 20th Amendment
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,590+ views
If you want moral standards, go to the Bible.
***I must and I do.
That’s where I find them. I also find that the Bible says that the people choose and deserve the fools for leaders that they want.
***I also find in the 20th amendment that there is a constitutional redress for this situation, that the president elect can fail to qualify.
That is probably the case here. It’s not a “moral standard” that you’re going to get out of this “voting” by the populace... You should understand that by now.
***The framers of our constitution understood it and so do I. They understood that numbskulls could vote in a president elect who fails to qualify. So I ask again, what is your FReeping problem?
SECONDLY — if you look — *very specifically* about *what is wrong* here, you’ll see that it’s *not* Obama that is “wrong”. That may sound strange to hear that — but think about it — what *went wrong*???
***The process. But that’s what the Supreme Court is there for.
The actual *wrong* here — is — the vetting process is deficient and failed us. Obama is not the “wrong” in this matter — but in the spirit of the “founding fathers” — they never depended upon “man” to provide the “right” in the situation — but rather — they depended upon the *process* to provide the right — because they knew that all men are sinful and therefore cannot be depended upon.
***Okie dokie, artichokie, and your point is?
THEREFORE, if we *correct the wrong* — we correct the process...
***Then I ask you, yet again, what is your FReeping problem with those of us who are correcting the process?
LLS
Nope. All the cases are still alive.
This is a fine example of the failure to apply logic in the law. If your assertion is correct, then the SC is engaged in an extremely clear-cut case of logical fallacy.
You can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive, and the Constitution is constructed such that the burden of proof is on the would-be president to supply proof of natural born citizenship. If the SCOTUS has in fact determined that Berg et al must supply evidence of a negative (e.g. that there is no proof of a missing BC), then they are fools and illiterates in the ways of logic, and should all immediately be removed, disbarred, and tattooed across the forehead with the word "Fraud".
I see. Knowing that he is not qualified and defrauding the DNC and ultimately all of America isn't wrong.
Got it.
Thanks.
Posts #3, 10, 17, 29, 39, 59, 77, 95 on this thread alone have used the argument that the Supreme Court must be corrupt for denying to hear this case.
***BZZZT, wrong. We are directly in lineage back to post #3 which says they’re gunshy, not corrupt. Take your argument where it exists, not where you want it to exist.
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.