Justices turn aside another challenge over Obama's citizenship

CNN ^ | November 30, 2010 5:29 a.m. EST | By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

[fwdude]

“Birthers” should NEVER give up pursuing the truth of the matter about Ø’s qualifications for President, NEVER. Just like the Saul Alinski leftists, if we persist, something will eventually stick. They never give up their assault against America, why should we give up assaulting godless liberalism?

[Undocumented_capitalist]

You obviously never ran a business.
If they passed a tax credit for employing people, small and big businesses would hire people pronto. And that includes my family business.

[FS11]

There is no doubt that BO is not a Natural Born Citizen regardless of where he was born. However, the best chance for legally removing BO is by indictment for the many crimes that he has committed.

http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320

[Undocumented_capitalist]

Also realize that there is way to change unemployment from 9.6% to 5% overnight. But with incentives to businesses over a period of 6 to 12 months there could be significant change. That is what Boehner and others in GOP should be focusing on.

Birther issue is not going anywhere. SCOTUS has rejected to review it many times already. I am sure you are aware of the definition of insanity. It is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

And I speak as the most anti-Obama voter out there. B ut I am not insane.

[rlferny]

The Civil War was a war for state’s rights. Guess what - the states lost. Now we are trying to get them back. Too many years of complacency have lead here.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"I realize that I'm about to get flamed but the birthers need to realize that Obama loves this controversy. It distracts from his real flaws (ie, socialist America-hater) and smears the conservative movement as a bunch of conspiracy theorists akin to the 911 truthers."

I agree wholeheartedly. Plus, it lets the whole of conservatism be smeared as wacko-ville by the pundits.

The thing to do is get one State legislature, just one, pass a law that requires candidates to publicly provide documentation which demonstrates they meet all qualifications for office before being allowed on a ballot. That would force Obama to put up or withdraw in 2012.

[spokeshave]

Boehner’s top priority should be creating jobs, not spend time on searching for the original BC of president Zero

Yeah...but the clean up and rebuilding after the riots would solve the unemployment problem.

[Mariner]

"In January, won't Speaker Boehner have the power to create an impeachment committee, if only for the purpose of investigating Obama's qualifications for office by subpenaing relevant documents? "

Better yet, I hope 5-10 states pass a law that requires anyone to be on the state presidential ballot to submit proof of natural born citizenship.

No federal agency, court or other entity would have any recourse.

[OneWingedShark]

>You obviously never ran a business.

Irrelevant, I said DIRECTLY impact [un]employment.
Altering payroll tax, or minimum wage, or regulation/deregulation allow the EMPLOYER varying degrees of freedom and the employer will hire or fire based on that degree of freedom. Ergo, altering those factors are INDIRECT in nature.

>If they passed a tax credit for employing people, small and big businesses would hire people pronto. And that includes my family business.

Um, here’s an idea; tax everyone’s income, no exceptions or credits or deferments, at a uniform rate.
Yes, this immediately destroys tax-preparation businesses; on the other hand it eliminates the need for the IRS, it eliminates any motivation for “the rich” to seek “tax havens,” and it can be done for a cost of virtually $0*.

[Plummz]

the Constitution gives no role to the courts in deciding whether a president was properly elected.

This is true but two points must be made:

1. The issue is not whether Barry was "properly elected" but whether or not he is qualified.

2. SCOTUS broke that rule when they interfered in the 2000 election.

Vis-a-vis point 2, just has they took up an improper role in 2000, here they are abdicating their proper role, by refusing to hear whether or not a candidate is properly qualified, something the courts have done before for officeholders.

[Eagle Eye]

It distracts from his real flaws

Yeah, no one can think two things at one time. /s

[Blood of Tyrants]

We don’t need his birth certificate because having dual citizenship and a non-citizen father excludes him from the definition of natural born citizen.

[jamese777]

We don’t need his birth certificate because having dual citizenship and a non-citizen father excludes him from the definition of natural born citizen.

---

And yet Vice President Cheney counted and certified Obama’s Electoral College votes and not one single member of Congress objected to the certification when only one senator and one representative were needed to object and force a congressional investigation. And then Chief Justice Roberts administered the Oath of Office and the Supreme Court has refused to hear any challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

[Neidermeyer]

Boehner’s top priority should be creating jobs, not spend time
on searching for the original BC of president Zero.

****************************************************
How much time would he be wasting exactly?? Five minutes calling Hawaii? Seems like a reasonable thing to do ,,, especially as a valid question persists and the answer may neuter the executive office ,, let the rats argue for months about what to do while O pretends all is still well... make him step down ,, impeachment isn’t necessary ,, just declare any and all of his actions DOA... every day until he leaves.

[Texas Fossil]

I think any attempt to expand the role of the courts farther is by definition a BAD IDEA.

Although I am convinced there is a Serious Problem with Obozo's BC, I think your argument is the most sensible I have heard on the subject.

The issue now is assigning responsibility for the failure of Congress, the Electoral College and the officials in the Dem Party who failed to do their duty in certifying properly their candidate. This problem if it is eventually fully exposed should destroy the credibility of the entire Democrat Party as to end it. My concern is that "many" Republicans knew he was not "qualified" and said nothing. Was it due to complicity, stupidity or fear? There are many questions that need to be answered.

[OneWingedShark]

insanity –noun, plural -ties.
1. — the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
2. — Law . such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.
3. — Psychiatry . (formerly) psychosis.
4. — extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.

Sane
1 — proceeding from a sound mind : rational
2 — mentally sound; especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one’s actions
3 — healthy in body

Let’s just assume you’re talking about definition #2 of Sane when you cite insanity as being “repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.”

I have a bit of a legal problem which, upon asking anyone in a position of authority, is always ignored or referred to someone else; should I give up on it then?

Anyway, here it is.
New Mexico State Statute
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
—(1) a peace officer;
—(2) university security personnel;
—(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
—(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
—(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.

B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.

C. As used in this section:
—(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
—(2) “university premises” means:
——(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
——(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.

D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

HOWEVER, according to the New Mexico State Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.

So, given the above, if I were to strap on my .45 and walk around my University campus would I be breaking any law? [why or why not?]
According to the State Constitution “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,” yet NMSA 30-7-2.4 certainly does. {In fact, if you live in on-campus student housing by the NMSA 30-7-2.4 you may neither keep nor bear arms... unless, perhaps, you always left it in your vehicle... but that assumes you have a vehicle.}

Would the police, acting in accordance with NMSA 30-7-2.4, making an arrest be making a legitimate arrest? Why or why not?
If they ARE [making an legitimate arrest] then doesn’t it stand to reason that ANY statute, regardless of its agreement with the state constitution, may then be acted upon? Should I try to take this to court? {I’m sure many gun-control laws have case-law support, thus fighting this law may fall under the “repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result” definition of insanity you gave, no?}

But let’s take this one step further; the state constitution says “no municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms” so then, by what authority do the city- & county-courthouses display “No Weapons” on their buildings?

[OneWingedShark]

If you go back and look at the certification proceedings for Pr GW Bush objections are called for MULTIPLE TIMES; where, in the certification for Obama, was even one objection allowed {called for}?

I, personalty, think that the McCain/Obama choice foisted upon us was *PRECISELY* to weaken the US by giving “precedence” to non- or questionable-NBC qualified people.

By electing and certifying McCain we would have the NWO-types pressuring for more not-born-in-the-US and giving them the argument for allowing dual-citizenship types to be considered NBC.
By electing and certifying Obama those same NWO-types have all that McCain would PLUS they can guage how well America takes to having a non-american ruler, AND setting up actual-precedence for a push against the NBC requirement.

Case-law is extremely dangerous in that it raises ‘Precedence’ to an equal level with the law, and in fact allows people to reference that precedence to make the law “of none effect” thereby actually elevating it above the law. I am quite saddened that the populace does not realize that ‘precedence’ is nothing more than the children’s game of ‘telephone’ played by the judiciary with nothing less than your freedoms and liberties being mangled therein.

[Texas Fossil]

Boehner’s top priority should be creating jobs, not spend time on searching for the original BC of president Zero.

Wrong, governments do not create jobs. Governments tax, regulate and provide a military and currency.

Wrong, Boehner does not have to spend his time examining Obozo's records because he can select others to do that. It needs to happen. For your information the issue is a lot larger than the BC and it will not go away until he does.

[Texas Fossil]

1-4...And I have perhaps 50 more, but this is a good start to increase employment.

All those listed "reduce government", none of them directly create anything. Government does not create, simply tax, regulate, protect and more recently redistribute. Government is not the solution it is the problem.

See my tagline

[Barry Secrest]

Interesting that, from what I can tell, no one ever points out the fact that Reid and Pelosi actually changed the standard form which is used by Party leaders in order to certify a President as “eligible” to run. The reason? they had not seen his BC either is the ostensible answer.

Wait for Obama’s poll numbers to drop a bit further and this particular distraction may yet gain traction.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127