Could you be more specific in how "high" they were?
Posted on 12/31/2008 2:20:29 AM PST by Man50D
A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."
In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury .
In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.
"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.
"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign up now!
Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Oy.
Ping!
One thing is clear. We need to be all over our legislators to enact laws that require an open and honest standard of vetting these candidates.
IMO, we'll get that sometime after we find out who hired Craig Livingstone. Our legislators, both R and D, have no interest whatever in following the Constitution if there is any hint it would upset their cozy club.
There is a reason these vermin are called POLITICIANS!
Quite literally Obama will have one or more lawsuits every week he is in office.
He will go down in history as the only president to have subpoenas served daily.
And the longer he stays in office the more people he will bring down thus weakening America even further and opening chinks for our enemies to dig into.
ping
The only part of the Constitution they like following is the 16th amendment.
Rumor says that O’s parents divorce papers state that O was born in Kenya, to be released TODAY.
this has also created a good future litmus test for fed. appointees,,determine how he would have decided on 0’b, then reject him as an admitted felon if he gives the wrong answer, assuming 0’b is rejected by the Supremes.
If the divorce papers DO show his, it would be supreme irony. Remember, it was the divorce papers of another that allowed 0 to gain his Senate seat. However, I am not gonna hold my breath.
I heard the same thing and we will soon confirm that the BO is an imposter. Of course I cannot revel my sources because they were very high BO campaign officials.
How dare ordinary citizens challenge the privilege of their masters?
The Rats in Olympia will take care of that pesky statute PDQ.
Released from where and by who? Do you have a link?
'At NO TIME did he produce'... enough said. Such a simple request for Barack to fulfill the requirement. It's too bad so many have drank the Fool Aid. It is pitiful.
Could you be more specific in how "high" they were?
After Obama is inaugurated, any individual uniquely and adversely affected by one of his official actions as President would have standing to challenge his eligibility to be President. E.g., a bureaucrat or political employee fired by Obama. (Same with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, whose appointment and confirmation might violate the Emoluments Clause; see Eugene Volokh’s exploration of this issue, here: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml)
That being said, any federal judge hearing the case would:
1) Find no standing anyway, even if such a conclusion is contrary to law, or
2) Find another technical ground to dismiss the case.
There’s just no way a federal judge is going to buck the political will of the American people, which is to have Obama as President. The matter should not be deemed what is called a Political Question in constitutional law (something committed to the political branches, which the courts cannot touch) because it involves an explicit textual command of the Constitution (just as, e.g., whether the person elected President is qualified to serve when he might not be 35 years old is not a Political Question.)
But, as a practical matter, it is a Political Question - because federal judges will simply refuse to touch the issue of whether Obama is eligible to be President. I’d bet the house on it (if I had a house.) However, the Hillary Clinton matter is closer call. It might happen that a case challenging Clinton’s eligibility to serve as Secretary of State would progress to the merits.
"The will of the electorate" in this case is moot if, in fact, they were grossly misled into voting for a Kenyan.
Had the electorate known him not to be an American he would never have been elected in the first place.
You said — “One thing is clear. We need to be all over our legislators to enact laws that require an open and honest standard of vetting these candidates.”
Oklahoma has started the process. I think it’s the first state in the U.S. to do so. I’ll be talking to the legislators there, when the session opens...
You said — “He will go down in history as the only president to have subpoenas served daily.”
Ummm..., can we check back on that in about six months with that count?
You said — “Rumor says that O’s parents divorce papers state that O was born in Kenya, to be released TODAY.”
Ummmm..., it’s like Chief Editor Korir, with API (African Press International) when he was going to come out with one thing or another. A detail changed, a date change, a complication came up, and so on. Eventually nothing would ever come of it (at least the way that it was told at first...).
So, with this Ed Hale and his Plains Radio program, it seems to be that way already. So, we’ll see how the “details” work out. The devil is always in the details and people keep getting “strung along” on this Obama qualification issue.
And, as you know, Ed Hale was also involved with Chief Editor Korir and his Michelle Obama tape, where she said that Obama was born in Kenya. After Ed Hale and Chief Editor Korir got into a tiff over Ed airing the tape, but threatened to sue Korir for breach of contract, because Korir said the tape was going to Fox News — Ed just dropped off the scene... LOL..
So, we’ll see how this “works out”. My guess is that — as usual — it’s *never* what we’re told at first, and it never works out to accomplish what everyone here wants (which is to get proof that Obama not qualified). And, of course, that’s the big problem, since no one has any proof...
I wish FR had an ignore button!
I will be ignoring your long and clueless rants.
I wish FR had an ignore button!
***There’s a cool setup on the religion threads, using ecumenical tags or prayer tags or Caucus tags. It would be interesting to open a thread or two of these Certifigate items under such guidelines. I did that with Crevo and the experiment was more or less successful, just very high maintenance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”
Great idea!
Feel free to steal it. I think I’ve used up quite a bit of the religion mod’s patience.
Yes, “enforced political correctness” should work very well... :-)
Try, “this thread closed to all but crazy ideas that don’t work in real life...”
See, the idea probably has merit... ;-)
LOL!
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.