Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supremes get case against 'putative' President Obama
WND ^ | October 01, 2010 | Bob Unruh

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; chicagomob; corruption; eligibility; harvardresumefraud; naturalborncitizen; noaccountability; nobc; nobirthcertificate; nodocumentation; nointegrity; nojustice; notruth; noveritas; obama; obamavsamerica; obamavsconstitution; resumefraud; scotusvsamerica; scotusvsjay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 10/01/2010 6:59:24 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Well, if nothing else, this will slow Obama and his Administration from their treasonous usurping of the Constitution, if only for a few minutes.


2 posted on 10/01/2010 7:05:50 PM PDT by IncPen (Educating Barack Obama has been the most expensive project in human history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

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.



3 posted on 10/01/2010 7:08:52 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:31 Behold, I am against you, O you most proud, said the Lord God of hosts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

‘it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will.’

NOT HARDLY


4 posted on 10/01/2010 7:09:03 PM PDT by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

...


5 posted on 10/01/2010 7:12:03 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...

Ping..................


6 posted on 10/01/2010 7:14:17 PM PDT by melancholy (It ain't Camelot, it's Scam-a-lot! Zero is no Zorro and Apette is no Antoinette!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: melancholy; RobinMasters; LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...

Keep praying!


7 posted on 10/01/2010 7:17:34 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

‘There have been so many of these cases/the fix is in’ ping to self.


8 posted on 10/01/2010 7:31:09 PM PDT by GBA (Not on our watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
I'd be curious to see if the Court would agree that Wong Kim Ark can be distinguished from the Obama facts, as this article argues:

Birth of a President

9 posted on 10/01/2010 7:43:41 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freddd

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.


10 posted on 10/01/2010 7:46:11 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

“A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed . . .”

Good luck with that.


11 posted on 10/01/2010 7:48:57 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (Detente with the GOP nomenklatura - trust, but verify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
World Net Daily, perhaps trying to keep it simple, fails to mention the equal protections (14th Amendment) violations when congressmen were sent registered letters by Commander Kerchner in the Summer of 2008 asking that they investigate Obama’s eligibility. They had investigated McCain half a dozen times, held hearings, and even tried to pass a law, SB2678 and did unanimously pass a resolution, Senate Res. 511, asserting that McCain was eligible (even though he wasn't). It can't get much more clear than that. They had the audacity to to quote the part of Article II which makes Obama ineligible: "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy."

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.

12 posted on 10/01/2010 8:04:56 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

It appears that the supreme court many other judges would pefer to aid and abet treason, rather than uphold the constitution.


13 posted on 10/01/2010 8:09:06 PM PDT by Waco (Bury a pig,,save America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; RobinMasters

Here’s a post that tells me why ALL the media outlets are mum on this issue, and doubting the SCOTUS’ impartiality as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2597626/posts?page=40#40


14 posted on 10/01/2010 8:37:23 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

What makes them think these same failed arguments will convince the court this time?


15 posted on 10/01/2010 8:39:31 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :P

16 posted on 10/01/2010 8:46:26 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Justice Clarence Thomas, in an appearance before Congress, previously said the court has been "evading" the Obama eligibility issue:

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.

17 posted on 10/01/2010 8:56:05 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
The dissent wrote, "Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

Typically, the dissent argues against what the majority decided...

18 posted on 10/01/2010 9:04:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
The one on the right looks like Chad Johnson in drag.
19 posted on 10/01/2010 9:35:19 PM PDT by jarofants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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. “


20 posted on 10/01/2010 9:44:48 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Even if the Court were to take this case, the end result would never be the Court “removing” Obama from office. At most, and this would be quite a lot, the Court might find that the Congress did not have or did not follow a constitutionally adequate PROCESS for determining if a candidate is a NBC and, therefore, constitutionally eligible to be President. Included in such a ruling might be the Court’s “clarification” on the constitutional standard for a NBC.

At that point, it would be up to Congress to react to the Court’s ruling and do whatever it is Congress thought complied with that ruling.


21 posted on 10/01/2010 9:51:13 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; RobinMasters
"Justice Clarence Thomas, in an appearance before Congress, previously said the court has been "evading" the Obama eligibility issue..."

This is part of the transcript of the exchange between Congressman Serrano and Justice Thomas.

I included the discussion preceding the often cited exchange to add context.

Before what is posted below, there was a lot of details about court funding in general, but there was also some light hearted exchanges about the Red Sox, White Sox and Yankees. The atmosphere at the meeting was congenial and jovial.

There was no discussion of Obama, and there is no way of knowing if Thomas was thinking of the president or his eligibility. However, it is obvious from the transcript that Chairman Serrano was joking about his own eligibility to be president because of his Puerto Rican birth...and that is what Justice Thomas was responding to.

SERRANO: You know it's interesting, Justice Thomas, when you say it's a humbling experience. I'll tell you a quick experience that I had.

I represent, as you know, the South Bronx. And there’re a lot of immigrants in the South Bronx. There’re a lot of folks with English as a second language, a lot of poor folks, a lot of folks with little education. And so even explaining on a daily basis after 20 years in Congress what it is a member of Congress does, it's a daily routine for me either in the school, in the community center or on the street.

When Sonia Sotomayor was being considered, granted that a lot of the excitement was the fact that she was a woman from the Bronx, that she was a Hispanic woman, that her parents were from Puerto Rico. But there was no explanation on my part as to what she was being nominated for. Everybody understood la Corte Suprema (ph - Spanish).

You know it was as if they knew that this was huge. This was big. This was important. This was a coming of age for the community. And it became something where everywhere I went, you want to make sure this happens. So I say oh, yes, I spoke to the Senate; it's a done deal you know.

But the importance, I've told you in the past, much to the dismay of some of my friends on the left, but I feel a little uneasy about having a hearing for the Supreme Court because of the respect I have for the court. I don't always agree with its decisions, but I have a respect for it.

So it's humbling, but the public understands. The public understands the importance of what you do and the bearing it has on the future of our country. And so we always thank you for your service and tell the other seven that we do the same.

THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's always an honor being here. You and I have been at this together for a decade and a half. And...

SERRANO: I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court because I'm not a judge. I have never been a judge.

THOMAS: And you don't have to be born in the United States. You never have to answer that question.

SERRANO: Oh really?

THOMAS: Yes.

SERRANO: So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one.

THOMAS: We're evading that one. We're giving you another option.

SERRANO: Thanks a lot.

THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SERRANO: Ms. Emerson?

In context, there is very little indication that it had anything to do with Obama.

Full Transcript

22 posted on 10/01/2010 9:55:15 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
At that point, it would be up to Congress to react to the Court’s ruling and do whatever it is Congress thought complied with that ruling.

Congress probably would do nothing because the USSC can not compel the Congress to do anything.

23 posted on 10/01/2010 10:10:13 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel, published in 1758 and "used by … the Continental Congress during the formation of our country…" defines natural born citizen as "a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country."
...
That phrase was left undefined in the Constitution, and Apuzzo argues only the judiciary can fully define it now.

When politicians stand on "principle" as an excuse for inactivity, or to avoid doing the hard work and making the tough choices, it can easily be dismissed as incompetence and terminal self interest.
When observers and commentators, yes, even including Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly play the "we're a nation of laws" card, it is embarrassing. When two of the three branches of government ignore the Constitution with impunity, that "nation of laws" thing becomes meaningless. "Making change through the ballotbox" is impossible, when both the keepers of the ballot box and those who are charged with supervising them are criminally incompetent, or simply criminal.

Then what?

There is something unsettling about accused criminals arrogantly claiming that they have the authority to interpret the Constitution by default, Obama and Pelosi come to mind, with the help of hundreds of others, including, apparently, most of the lower federal courts.

24 posted on 10/01/2010 10:10:25 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("In 1964 the War on Poverty Began --- Poverty won.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Thanks.

I really didn’t think Justice Thomas would be stupid enough to actually say that in public.

But it did sound good.


25 posted on 10/01/2010 10:13:25 PM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Impeachment is the only hope. Speaker Boehner can initiate impeachment proceedings in January. An impeachment committee will have the power to force production of any documents it wants or needs.

If Speaker Boehner refuses to act, there will be no remedy, period. The Supreme Court will not provide any remedy here and the Supreme Court would not provide any remedy here if the four most conservative justices on the court were the only ones voting.

Either we will have impeachment proceedings or we can pound sand and history will regard people like us as nothing more than ignorant cranks.

26 posted on 10/01/2010 10:14:11 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freddd
NOT HARDLY

Also not since the horse died.

Doofus.

27 posted on 10/01/2010 10:14:29 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("In 1964 the War on Poverty Began --- Poverty won.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Your reference to an article in which the author, B.A. Rogers repeatedly refers to the decisions in Wong Kim Ark making Wong Kim a natural born citizen is either propaganda, or gross ignorance. Having known a couple of nationally syndicated reporters who skillfully cobbled an article based upon someone else’s work, one can only guess at this author's path to a lie. Regardless, his article is built entirely upon a false premise; the author has fabricated nonesense. Here is the Wong Kim decision:

“...whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Order affirmed.

Nowhere in the above decision does the term natural born citizen appear. These are operatives of Obama attempting to confuse those interested enough to pay a little attention. The Wong Kim decision was almost entirely a long winded interpretation of the 14th Amendment in which the word natural born citizen never appears. Justice Gray's discussion of the place of English Common Law in our legal framework is seriously at odds with the real scholars of the court, James Wilson, James Kent, Joseph Story, but irrelevant in any case. In fact, look through the Wong Kim decision and you will find the complete quotation by Chief Justice Morrison Waite of the Minor v. Happersett restatement of the Vattel definition of natural born citizen on page 19 of 34 in the complete decision.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Would Justice Gray cite Chief Justice Waite and then contradict the citation he used? Of course not. One could wonder if his meandering reasoning wasn't to confuse anyone who might happen to have wondered about Chester Arthur's legitimacy, Arthur having apointed Gray. But there there is no historical evidence that anyone knew that Arthur's father's naturalization occured after Arthur was born. Arthur too hid most all of his records.

It is hard to understand how people find it in their interest to try to confuse people into giving up liberty to keep a Marxist/Communist bent upon destroying capitalism in power. Perhaps they are well-paid? Perhaps they work for unions? Regardless, check for yourselves. Wong Kim Ark was declared a “citizen” by the reasoning of the 14th Amendment. The correct definition of a natural born citizen is cited in Wong Kim, which is a quotation from the Minor v. Happersett decision:

It isn't so hard to understand how Republican leaders would want to discourage a constitutional opinion on Obama's eligibility. Where the differences between Democrats and Republicans have become smaller, Obama's extremism will return the Ruling Class Republicans to office, so many of whom voted for Tarp, cap-and-trade, and did little to hinder the health care bill. They may want Obama to stay until the lobbyists have redirected their largess to the ruling party.

28 posted on 10/02/2010 12:11:23 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

No controlling legal authority. We pulled a fast one on the American people and so far, we have gotten away with it.


29 posted on 10/02/2010 12:36:09 AM PDT by teletech (Say NO to RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man; Pontiac; RobinMasters
And of course, this isn't even a *new* joke for Serrano and the justices. Serrano asking about his eligibility, and the Justices not answering, was also part of the 2009 hearing and the 2008 hearing, and the 2007 hearing too. This is a running joke for Serrano, nothing more.
30 posted on 10/02/2010 6:20:16 AM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
They had investigated McCain half a dozen times, held hearings,...

No they didn't. The supposed Senate "hearings" about McCain's eligibility are an urban myth. This is why no one ever cites when they were, or which committee held them, or where the record of those hearings can be found. Because they can't. The only time McCain's eligibility even got mentioned in a Senate hearing was the Leahy/Chertoff exchange you quoted from, which was a single question-and-answer during a Homeland Security hearing.

31 posted on 10/02/2010 6:28:13 AM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
I think the point is one you are leaping over with your analysis.

Regardless of all you say, the WKA case has in these very types of lawsuits been accepted by courts as determinative on the issue of who is a NBC.

I understand why you think a court would be wrong to view WKA as dispositive on the issue of who is a NBC. However, this article starts with the fact, as the author clearly states, that courts and individuals have found and argued such. The author then presents an analysis demonstrating that the WKA can NOT be found determinative on that point (wrongly obtained or not) -- or on any lesser included point.

So this is basically an argument in the alternative, to wit: even IF a court concludes that WKA is dispositive on the issue of who is a NBC, only certain facts permit that conclusion.

Accepting a premise in arguendo, especially for the purpose of making an argument in the alternative, is not a "lie." It's a useful, and often necessary, mode of argument, particularly in litigation.

The lawyer would argue (1) WKA is not a ruling on the issue of NBC, but (2) even if it were (i.e., even if a court were to so find), WKA was based on a fact pattern that is NOT present in the instant case (therefore, WKA cannot be binding precedent in that case).

Arguments in the alternative HELP one's case, not hinder it.

32 posted on 10/02/2010 6:51:07 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

The Supreme Court could take action to vouchsafe the Constitution here, yet still (appropriately) throw this question back in the political arena, by ordering the Solicitor General to brief certain neutral questions relevant to the issue of granting Cert. IOW, don’t take cert., but hold the petition for cert. open following briefs on the following questions.

These questions are:

What congressional procedures are in place to evaluate whether, and ensure that, a candidate is constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States?

What standard is applied by Cogress to determine if a candidate is constitutionally eligible to serve?

What, if any, process for review of Congress’ decision on eligibility is available?

What, if any, remedy is available if Congress fails to follow its procedures for determining eligibility?

If these questions were ordered to be briefed, by the SG or even both parties, this entire issue would go back to Congress and they would have to wrestle it and come up with the answers. This is where the issue should be, and the process of having to answer these questions would, in large part, answer the case.

Moreover, this is a necessary discussion for Congress to have as this issue will come up again in the future and there is no need for the nation to keep going through this.


33 posted on 10/02/2010 7:05:12 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Congress probably would do nothing because the USSC can not compel the Congress to do anything.

But once the Supreme Court said the Congress should do something (specific), the American people would make sure, so far as within their power, the Congress abided by the law of the land.

If SCOTUS said Congress "should" establish a procedure and standard for ensuring a candidate was constitutionally eligible to serve, I doubt the American people would rest until Congress did so.

34 posted on 10/02/2010 7:08:20 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

In essence, WKA argued ‘in amity’, which does NOT require permanent residence. They mention two examples of those not included, and neither exception was based on temporary domicile or not working...


35 posted on 10/02/2010 7:14:35 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
If SCOTUS said Congress "should" establish a procedure and standard for ensuring a candidate was constitutionally eligible to serve, I doubt the American people would rest until Congress did so.

From a strictly political point of view, the only way either party would be willing to tackle the issue would be to take Obama out of the equation. Neither the Supreme Court nor either party in Congress will directly address a sitting President's eligibility, especially this far into his term. They would have to "grandfather" Obama's eligibility before anyone would touch it.

36 posted on 10/02/2010 7:19:37 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

Some left wing politicans are pushing for impeachment if it is determined in court that obama is ineligible to be president. Their reasoning is if congress VOIDS obama’s election biden would not be president.Voiding obama’s election is the legal course congress should take to remove obama. This would invalidate any actions obama took during his illegal stay in the White House.


37 posted on 10/02/2010 8:01:59 AM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

Thanks for the ping


38 posted on 10/02/2010 8:16:47 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

> “Good luck with that.” <

There is nothing about “luck” in this whole treasonous scheme and I’m beginning to believe that the Justices, or at least Chief Justice Roberts, has been threatened not to pursue the matter.

Just my opinion.


39 posted on 10/02/2010 8:54:15 AM PDT by Joe Marine 76 (Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Some left wing politicans are pushing for impeachment if it is determined in court that obama is ineligible to be president. Their reasoning is if congress VOIDS obama’s election biden would not be president.Voiding obama’s election is the legal course congress should take to remove obama. This would invalidate any actions obama took during his illegal stay in the White House.


Typical. Those left wing politicians are idiots and obviously know nothing of the Constitution. It would take the votes of 67 Senators to convict Obama and remove him from the presidency. That is highly unlikely and even if it were to occur, there is no “voiding of the election” that comes from removing the president. Biden WOULD become president and if he were to also be impeached and removed, then the Speaker of the House, Boehner or Pelosi would become president.
The Constitution has NO provisions for “voiding an election” and the 12th Amendment to the Constitution says that whoever receives a majority of the Electoral College votes, has those votes certified in a joint session of Congress and takes the Oath of Office “SHALL BE PRESIDENT.”
In 2008-2009, that was Barack Hussein Obama II. He can be impeached by the House and convicted and removed by the votes of 67 Senators.
My bet is that just like with Richard M. Nixon, if it looked like 67 Senators would vote to convict Obama, he would resign the presidency insuring that Joe Biden would become the president just like Gerry Ford.


40 posted on 10/02/2010 11:03:07 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.

They do not have our consent...

Seventy percent (70%) of Mainstream voters rate its performance as poor. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/


41 posted on 10/02/2010 11:12:11 AM PDT by EBH (We have lost our heritage of "making money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.

They do not have our consent...

Seventy percent (70%) of Mainstream voters rate its performance as poor. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/


It was about the same for the previous administration. That’s why polls are not the determiners of who is in or out of office.

We have elections in order to fire those who a majority opf voters deem to be incompetent and hire those who a majority of voters feel will be more competent.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval


42 posted on 10/02/2010 12:21:34 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Yes, the SCOTUS appropriately wants to avoid impacting the political process so far as possible. OTOH, one can see scenarios where the people, and, basically, the rule of law have no other means of remedy.

When Congress will not do its job in a transparent and accountable way, and the SCOTUS — again, appropriately — is very cautious about impacting the political process, there are times the country is going to get screwed royally.

I’m not saying the SCOTUS should not take an appropriate case. But the real answer to this is to get legislation passed that makes the process for evaluating whether a candidate is eligible to serve as president something that is NOT arbitrary and capricious, as it sometimes appears it is now.

IOW, a process that has a written STANDARD, set PROCEDURES, a process for REVIEW, and a REMEDY for failure to apply the standard and procedures in a reasonable way.


43 posted on 10/02/2010 1:33:32 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I don’t know who you are referring to as “they” in your post, nor am I following what you’re saying about the two examples.

The bottom line is that the majority made a ruling based on the FACTS presented. It did not make a ruling on facts NOT presented. The facts presented were that WKA’s parents were both legal residents of the U.S., legal domiciliaries of the U.S., and, moreover, even engaged in business in the U.S.

I don’t understand your point in resisting that statement of the case. Those were the facts, period. A case is decided on the facts before it, period (no matter what the Court says in dicta). If a future case is presented that involves the same legal question, but materially different facts, the holding in the first case is not BINDING precedent.

The only point here is that some see a way to argue that the facts of Obama’s parents’ ties to the U.S. can be distinguished from those of WKA’s parents. Therefore, the argument goes, since the two cases are distinguishable on the facts, the Court need not apply the ruling in WKA as BINDING precedent.

That is all.

I don’t see how someone can argue that WKA’s parents were not both legal residents, legal domiciliaries, and engaged in business in the U.S. (for decades). Those were the facts in WKA.

The facts in any case based on Obama’s parents’ connection to the U.S. are very different. That is all.


44 posted on 10/02/2010 1:51:50 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

The only facts that differ are that one parent was a born citizen, and the other was ‘merely’ here on a long term visa for study rather than employment - although as the husband of an American, he could have chosen to apply to stay here permanently.

To rule Obama isn’t a NBC, the court would have to toss out the reasoning of WKA and come up with an entirely different rationale, and do so to overturn the popular election of a sitting President.

Ain’t going to happen. Someone trying to overturn Obama’s agenda would be better off donating to good candidates than supporting BS cases like this.


45 posted on 10/02/2010 5:19:51 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

May I ask if you are a lawyer?

The differences between the parental ties of WKA to the U.S. and those of Obama’s parents are quite easily distinguishable. Although a court could still find that Obama is a NBC — on whatever ground — it is simply incorrect to say the “only difference” is a “mere” one. It doesn’t matter what Obama’s parents “could have chosen” to do; what matters is what they did — where they resided, where their domiciliary was, what kind of contacts they had and retained with this country.

Legal residency is not an inconsequential status. Neither is legal domiciliary.

Rahm Emanuel, for example, is facing questions about his eligibility to run for Mayor of Chicago because, it is argued, he is not a legal resident of Chicago, having changed his legal residence to Washington D.C. for the last 18 months or so.

Those arguments may not prevail, but they could. They are not inconsequential, depending on the law.

None of my comments are based on the likelihood of Obama being ruled ineligible or not. I am simply observing that, when the usual legal analysis is applied to WKA, there are arguments to be made that the facts of the Obama case are distinguishable from the facts of the WKA case.


46 posted on 10/02/2010 6:30:57 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

The remedy is to raise enough hell so that Congress, or at least one state, passes a law requiring certain information proving eligibility to serve as president before a candidate can be placed on the ballot.

Regardless of the merits of this case, there is no reason for the country to go through this.


47 posted on 10/02/2010 6:35:27 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Not a lawyer, nor have I ever pretended otherwise.

However, unlike WKA, one of Obama’s parents was a NBC of the USA. The other was legally residing here on purposes approved by the US government, with the option at the time of Obama’s birth of remaining here.

WKA’s parents did NOT have permanent domicile in the USA. “they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.”

Notice they point out they were here on business and NOT “in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China” - which would have prevented WKA from being a natural born subject, and thus a NBC according to their argument.

Compared to WKA, Obama’s mother was a NBC, she retained citizenship to death, and his father was here legally with the option of remaining...while WKA’s parents were BOTH non-citizens who both left the USA.

COULD a court reject the reasoning of WKA? Well, the Supreme Court can and has done pretty much whatever it has wanted without check from anyone - so yes, they COULD reject it and decide Obama needs to be thrown out of office.

But it is more likely that Obama will be struck down by lightening...


48 posted on 10/02/2010 6:43:36 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
No they didn't. The supposed Senate “hearings” about McCain's eligibility are an urban myth.

For those who have simply watched apparent disagreements, wondering what the truth is, this comment is an excellent example. Trolls don't have egos. They, perhaps like Muslims practicing Taquia, have a goal - to confuse the public. The characterization of trolls as Muslims, such as those telling patently false tales about their intent with the trophy mosque in Manhattan, may not be far from the truth. They may be part of a Muslim contingent buying time for our Muslim born officeholder.

As for the “urban myth” of SenRes 511 and SB2678, trolls assume that most of you won't check, which is probably true. So if they can confuse half of you they have been successful. Truth has a different meaning for trolls, and for Muslims.

Here is the “Thomas” record, the Library of Congress, for S.R.511
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511:

Here is the pointer to McCaskill’s bill, with Obama as co-sponsor, trying to assert that foreign born children of military citizens are eligible for the presidency. Had it passed it would have violated the Constitution. Perhaps anticipating the crisis they were creating by being quiet about Obama, the Senate wouldn't pass this one, and the Democrats had plenty of votes, including, of course, McCain, Snowe, etc. etc. More likely, they were all complicit in the Obama coverup, but could claim ignorance about natural born citizenship, as they generally have. It was safe to pass a non-binding resolution, SenRes 511, since it said, in essence, "We think he should be eligible, given all he has done for his country." Were McCain eligible, SenRes 511 would have been entirely pointless!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:190:./temp/~bdrHfn::|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=110|

We should have a troll table somewhere on FR to warn those looking for some semblance honest dialog. Remember, trolls aren't offended by being proved wrong. Their goal is to confuse as many as they can. With Obama’s approval rating in the thirtieth percntile, one might wonder why they still bother.

49 posted on 10/02/2010 8:22:32 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The other was legally residing here on purposes approved by the US government, with the option at the time of Obama’s birth of remaining here.

That option is called naturalization. Short of that, Barak Sr. was not a permanent resident and did not have a permanent domicile in the United States.

WKA’s parents did NOT have permanent domicile in the USA.

Gray says they did in the facts of the case, which you convenienly omitted: "His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; ..." He said it again in affirming that 14th amendment citizenship at birth was the ruling, "...of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ..."

which would have prevented WKA from being a natural born subject, and thus a NBC according to their argument.

Gray made no argument that being a natural born subject makes one a natural born citizen.

But it is more likely that Obama will be struck down by lightening...

Good pun.

50 posted on 10/02/2010 9:13:49 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson