Posted on 11/27/2010 2:40:03 AM PST by rxsid
"Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter
Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
...
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued. "
Continued: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
"Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter (re: Hollister vs. Soetoro)"
Twoth the Raven, “Nevermore!”
Prepare to be disappointed.
Twit: (noun) A silly, annoying person, a fool.
Twitter: (noun) A sillier, more annoying person, even more foolish.
Where are Rush, Beck, Hannity, Levin, etal...on this? Are they still siding with Obama on the Birther issue by refusing to honestly discuss this?
If you ain’t an Obama Birther....you will be an Obama supporter
#"Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
#"By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
#"In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
#"Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"
#"Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
LLS
Justice Thomas already let us know... they will side step this and tie it up on technical grounds until obama is out of office.
***They basically didn’t do their freeping job. The social contract we have with the SCOTUS is that they get lifetime employment so that they don’t have to worry about the political implications of their decisions. They failed. This whole debacle rests on their shoulders, and there appears to be nothing we can do about it.
I see nothing to be lost by throwing the issue at them whenever a valid new twist can be established. Some will consider this a waste of time and effort. Others might look at it like Churchhill did as to the Germans when things looked so hopeless.
I see nothing to be lost by throwing the issue at them whenever a valid new twist can be established. Some will consider this a waste of time and effort. Others might look at it like Churchhill did as to the Germans when things looked so hopeless.
Rush and crew wouldn’t touch this with a ten foot pole. Can you imagine the response if they all jumped on board and bamboo produced documentation?
Even if it was fake, the media would eat it up demanding their firing.
This will play itself out. Just need 5 justices to say, “let’s see the documents.”
Agreed, noinfringers2. Keep raising the issue. Continue to press for answers to the myriad questions awaiting response.
At some point, the truth will come out.
Those who ridicule that this amounts to tilting at windmills seem content to let the most significant Constitutional challenge of the last 75 years pass by...unnoticed, and unanswered, because they perceive such work to be futile.
Bull Puckey! Keep the heat on him. His charmed life is a mystery we cannot afford. This grand experiment demands more of us.
Don’t worry, we pay the justices good money, not to do their job. Next issue!!
Exactly.
Such a decision would be crossing the Rubicon - I question whether you appreciate to forces you are asking Kennedy, Roberts, et al to conjure with.
I expect the supreme Court will act according to its record and “avoid” the Constitutional question” I suspect they will
set the image of a White House -and the need to defend even the corrupt Fraud the White House has become . I suspect they will NOT place the US Constitution in the place of Honor as the Constitution demands of all public Officers. There is no
disappointment in having my expectations of our current government realized.ALL I have left is contempt for what we have allowed.
This possibility is why SCOTUS will probably continue to evade the issue even though by doing so they are failing utterly to step up to their constitutional responsibilities and this will reflect poorly on them in future history of the era. I hope I'm wrong but I've lived long enough to think this is the most likely legal scenario. There's always the possibility of the catastrophic revelation however...
Bumb later for reading
It really is that simple - you would have to show them to play Little League Baseball.
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.