Posted on 07/09/2010 10:31:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A decision by Judges Dolores Sloviter, Maryanne Trump Barry and Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have opened the door to questions on the record about President Obama's birth documentation and eligibility to be president, according to an attorney in the case.
The judges' opinion recently dismissed as "frivolous" an appeal of a lower-court decision throwing out questions about whether the British Nationality Act of 1948 made Obama, at his birth to an American mother and Kenyan father, a subject of the British crown, thus possibly making him ineligible under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii," the lawsuit claimed.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
A lower court dismissed the action, claiming the plaintiffs lack "standing" to make a claim about an alleged violation of the Constitution – meaning they weren't personally "injured" by the act.
The 3rd Circuit agreed.
"It is axiomatic that standing to sue is a prerequisite to Article III jurisdiction," the opinion said. "This constitutional mandate requires that appellants show, inter alia, an 'injury in fact.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I had predicted that by this past Spring, it would be the Democrats (again) demanding Obama’s birth certificate. Things have moved fast, but not that fast. I revive my prediction and say that will here the first noises about Obama’s eligibility to be President right after the November election. As Winter hits and continues, we’ll start to hear more Democrats, including elected Democrats. By next Spring, it’ll be public and ‘birther’ won’t be an insult anymore.
Why are these “frivolous” questions???
I really really don’t understand.
If he could answer them, he would or could do so in a heart beat.
These questions seem to me to be vitally important to every citizen of the Republic.
But, it seems, that’s just me ...
If he is American born, I’ll bet his name was never Barack Hussein Obama until he assumed that identity in his early college days. It could be that his father is not who he says. That would be a reason to conceal the truth. He is one big fraud, either way.
I wonder what evidence supports the judges' opinion that the case is "frivolous?" Did they simple declare or "deem" that it is frivolous? What evidence do they have to support their assertions? Who do they want to please and why? From what I read there is no hard evidence to support such a finding; the judges are using frivolous evidence to justify their action, IMO.
Why not go for a search warrant to get access to the original documents? Seems to me there is probable cause to believe a crime has and is being committed.
I suspect that you are correct. The larger question,however, is why our court system is covering for this man and completely ignoring our constitution. How can a citizen not have “standing” when any act of the president impacts them?
Doesn't matter where the Obama was born. He is not a 'natural born citizen' as his father was a foreign national.
Why? Why? Why? does THIS point keep getting ignored?? I don’t give a darn WHERE he was born. It is a distraction. Is there a debate about his father? I thought ALL agreed he was a British citizen. Why does that simple fact not make him a fraud as President?? Where he was born just clouds up the issue.
Most assuredly...curiouser, indeed. The whole question of ‘standing’ has been troublesome since the first case was filed. IMO, this is another example of a disconnect between what is right and what is legal. Common sense Americans know, innately, that any candidate in opposition should have ‘standing’. They know that ANY citizen who voted in the election for anyone other than the anointed one should have ‘standing’.
The legalistic arguments of particularized injury, etc., ring hollow to many of us.
That being said, however, we should respect the court’s decision and move forward within the framework of our system of jurisprudence. Take appeals where possible, challenge where necessary, and engage all appropriate resources to ferret out the truth.
It IS that important.
Would a person having their private health care canceled,tossed into Obama care and have a demonstrable injury inflicted upon them due to lesser coverage qualify?
If yes there should be millions of qualified claimants in a few years.
Everything about him is wrong.
That is just it. He doesn’t have to prove anything in the courts. Under our system, if he has or is suspected of a crime, he is innocent until proven guilty.
So, we need the evidence. 0bama, in a court setting has no obligation to produce any self-incriminating evidence.
If he is guilty of pulling off the greatest fraud in history...we need figure out a way to get the solid evidence.
If he is a British subject, then we’ve been looking in the wrong places for the evidence.
1. His skin is black.
2. His wife is black, and a direct descendant of slaves.
3. His children are descendants of slaves.
3 The One trillion he borrowed and pissed away is reparations for slavery.
4. 20 million descendants of slavery don't give a damn that the constitution forbids him from being president. Like an NBA championship game, they will riot the day he leaves office, regardless of reason, burning and looting our cities.
“This is not a matter for courts.”
It’s not? Can you explain that in more detail?
It appears to me that the whole American system is covering for this imposter. That includes the Democratic and Republican parties, Congress, Cheney, Pelosi, the courts, Main Street media. Fox News, BOR, Beck et al.
The cover up is more significant than the actual crime, as serious as that could be.
Why is it so important for this unqualified incompetent Communist to be President and for the power structure to cover up and ignore the truth? Why the abomination called health care reform?
>>There has been no court trial where such evidence would be heard, because nobody has had a valid case.<<
You say this as if you are in fact an attorney. Never in my 60+ years have I seen any single issue destroy the faith in America’s political and judicial system as rapidly as this one is doing. Talk about a trust crushing tactic, this is the one that will succeed. If loss of trust in ones government isn’t a serious injury then nothing is.
It seems, that the basic documents to be qualified to become President have been ignored. The basic documents and their examination and certifications as authentic have been circumvented. This is dereliction of duty of the highest order. However, because the proper steps where not taken, or ignored, it seems those in power have a vested interest in maintaining this charade. To undo it now, would demonstrate their incompetence and throw our Country into chaos. Pretty sad.
The whole bunch in Washington needs to be thrown out and we need a constitutional amendment, providing for term limits on Congress and to stop life time service on the Supreme Court. If a major change in Congress does not take place in November our Country, as we know it, is gone!
“When common sense cannot be applied in a court of law, what’s the point of a court of law?”
Thank you for this great statement.
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.