Skip to comments.Supremes get case against 'putative' President Obama
Posted on 10/01/2010 6:59:23 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A new court filing that returns the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to the U.S. Supreme Court warns that unless the judiciary makes a definitive decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will.
A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed with the high court in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal of a case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well, if nothing else, this will slow Obama and his Administration from their treasonous usurping of the Constitution, if only for a few minutes.
Alleges??? It's a been done deal. After the fact Jack!
The only out I can see for most of them is to GitRDone before the end of their term, or face charges.
‘it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will.’
‘There have been so many of these cases/the fix is in’ ping to self.
If the Congress and the political parties can define “natural born citizen” however they please, which apparently is the case right now, since no one can find the standard by which they approved candidates or the process for vouchsafeing the integrity of that standard, that is rather like amending (i.e., changing) the Constitution whenever they please.
Tbat’s how I read what the argument is.
“A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed . . .”
Good luck with that.
If the supreme court does not address a clear 14th amendment violation we are a nation without a foundation of law. It is whatever the ruling class says it is, and could likely lead to civil war, and is certainly leading to national bankruptcy.
A criminal justice department is denying our military access to the the vote; our money is being spent on criminal enterprises like Acorn created to deny us our sufferage rights; our courts are evading the dicta of over a dozen supreme court justices as well as the clarification in the Congressional archives by the principal author, Congressman John Bingham of the most important citizenship ruling in our history, the 14th amendment,
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen .
If our representatives won't represent us, or uphold the Constitution, we must replace them all, and there are more than enough of us to enforce the allegiance they have promised us but ignored, as beholden as they are to to lobbyists and special interests who promise them the big money. The only legislator with the integrity to question Obama's eligibility, Nathan Deal of Georgia, was attacked as he knew he would be, with the resources for which we paid, using the IRS, the House Ethics Committee and the justice deparment. Follow the Kerchner Apuzzo writ at http://puzo1.blogspot.com If the court continues to evade its responsibility our "government of laws, and not of men" is broken and those of us who produce the wealth must take it back for our children by whatever means necessary, since the law is impotent.
It appears that the supreme court many other judges would pefer to aid and abet treason, rather than uphold the constitution.
Here’s a post that tells me why ALL the media outlets are mum on this issue, and doubting the SCOTUS’ impartiality as well:
What makes them think these same failed arguments will convince the court this time?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :P
I wonder why. Do they know something? Do they have reason to suspect something?
Perhaps they do not want precipitate nationwide riots that are likely to occur should the first black president be removed from office.
I have no doubts that the Justices lives would be seriously at risk should they remove BHO from office by a ruling from the bench.
I the USSC chooses not to hear the case they do not typically give a reason so I expect to hear nothing from them on this case.
Typically, the dissent argues against what the majority decided...
The dissent often also argues against how it sees the majority’s argument being applied in the future.
Obviously, the facts in WKA did NOT fit the criteria you quoted from the dissent, especially “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country.” As the article at the lihk detailed, WKA’s parents most certainly were not simply passing through the country with him happening to be born here.
IOW, rather than stating this is what the majority held, this is more like a warning by the dissent that the majority’s opinion ought not be read that broadly in the future because, regardless, THOSE FACTS were not before the Court. It’s like saying “don’t get any ideas that you’ll get away with claiming that NBC means the children of parents who were here without the kind of connection to the country that these parents had. “