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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 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