Judge tosses out Army captain's complaint questioning president's birth.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/841419.html ^

[little jeremiah]

I think so. But much, and I repeat MUCH, will have to be swept aside (jail time? Ceaucescu?). Attitudes, expectations, “it’s always been this way”, “we’ve always done it this way”, etc.

[little jeremiah]

Guess “sickoflibs” is lying about his/her screen name. Maybe should be “slicklib”?

[sickoflibs]

You are pretty good at cutting and making stuff up(were you counting those ballots too?), your editor missed the real text I wrote:

Now don't make up a straw argument to defeat. I said nothing about any of that,I only said that the ruling violated the US constitution that specifically GIVES the election decisions to the states, (the Voting Rights Act is questionable too). The Federal government is not granted that power. Nor is there a right to vote. Read your Constitution before you claim your sole argument is ‘the constitution’

You could win any debate by editing the debate tapes too. Brilliant!

[antonia]

You introduced the the straw argument, you can take the heat for it.

[sickoflibs]

What heat? You mean fellow birthers?? Who cares??

[antonia]

The framers' intent was to keep Alexander Hamilton out of the office.

Where did you get that idea?

[antonia]

no the law cant be retro-active LOL

The Superfund Law retroactively imposed strict, joint, and severe liability on firms that disposed of wastes long before the bill was passed in 1980. Bill Clinton's retroactive tax increase in 1993, is the most obvious. In fact, as retroactive tax increases go, Clinton's was not so bad and certainly not unprecedented. There have been far, far worse retroactive tax increases. In the early 1980s, Congress created a tax deduction to encourage people to sell stock in a company to that company's employee stock option plan (ESOP). To get the benefit of that deduction, Jerry W. Carlton, the executor of the estate of Willametta K. Day, sold stock to an ESOP at a loss. Engaging in what Justice Antonin Scalia later called "bait and switch" taxation, Congress in 1986 repealed the tax deduction and applied the repeal retroactively, costing the estate more than $600,000. Justice Scalia's comment notwithstanding, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the government's assessment of the tax.

So, I guess that you might agree with me sickoflibs, that the Supreme Court, the Congress and even the President have and continue to often ignore the US Constitution. Do you believe that that is a good thing?

 

[antonia]

You know what I would like to see? More breach of the Constitution cases brought against the Secretary of States and the Electorates for not vetting the candidates properly. I would also like to a lawsuit againt Nancy Pelosi for breach of constitutional law when she submitted the Nomination for Barack and Biden without the words confirming he was eligible for the Presidency. Why, in God’s name, were there two documents in the first place? Where are our constitutional law attorneys right now? Why can’t we file a class action suit as Americans against this President and Congress? We have all been hurt by his presidency. All of us, as well as our the next 3 generations, are in debt to our eyeballs because of him. We, as a nation, are losing our jobs, our farms, our banks, our money. I say we’ve been harmed and we now have standing.

Any attorneys out there ready to take this on? I’ll sign up. My livelyhood and my very existence, my health, lies in this man’s and Congress’ hands. There has to be something we can do as a nation to redress our grievances.


Thanks for the really great post!
I couldn't find out what happened with this case. Does anyone know? PRLog (Press Release) – Nov 10, 2008 – On October 27, 2008

Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter re:"natural born citizen" - Before US Supreme Court

While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn't rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core Constitutional issue.  Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.

The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written "statement", prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were "by law entitled" to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary's oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the "natural born citizen" requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.  

Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.

 

[PAR35]

I’ve actually studied history.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I am waiting for it’s strength. Long wait.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”So, I guess that you might agree with me sickoflibs, that the Supreme Court, the Congress and even the President have and continue to often ignore the US Constitution. Do you believe that that is a good thing?”

Scalia is one of my heros because he is articulate and brilliant and can explain why we would want to follow the original intent of the constitution (not strict construction) rather than have judges make up law rulings, That being said, Scalia himself has given into temptation himself on occasion(but not often). Temptation as in Bork's book, the rulings because of politics or personal desires.
(Bush vs Gore is an example and Levin's Men in Black has a chapter on it, so it's not just liberal wishing .)

Just like Liberals Ginsburg types move away from the constitution in increments, the Robert's type rules must take it back in increments. Roberts and Alito explained why in their confirmation hearings over and over. You cant just make make dramatic changes departing from current law (prior rulings) that throws the country into chaos and in the case of birthing, a possible revolution. The public has a legitimate expectation of stability in the law.

My only suggestion is to pass a law detailing the validation of citizenship prior to taking office, and a process if the elected president fails. And it cant throw Obama out of office. That is responsible and defend-able.