Posted on 12/19/2010 2:31:41 AM PST by RobinMasters
It just doesn't appear to be going away.
The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.
According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.
This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The thought is that it would make him quit after a first term if it looked like a trend was developing.
Maybe a state could challenge Obama's authority to sign legislation (affecting that state) into law.
That would be great. You know I don’t think he is going to run anyway regardless of this. I think that is why he is in such a rush to pass all these bills. You have to remember that he gets 400K whether he does 4 years or 8 years and he is not one to work (golf anyone). So I sincerely believe this was his plan all along. Ruin the country as much as possible and bail.
This issue will go away in 2012 when Obama is defeated. Not before.
While I would love for 0bama to somehow be declared ineligible to serve as President, the fact is, whether we like or not, that the government has sufficient proof that he is. If no such proof existed, then there would have been no guilty plea in the recent court martial of the guy in the Army who was challenging 0bama’s eligibility.
Nope. As much of a dumbass as he is, Biden was legitimately elected VP. Succession in office is assured. Not a problem.
But I agree with you that the SCOTUS won't touch it.
Other posters on-thread have identified the correct approach, institute state requirements for proof. I am absolutely amazed that some conservative state has not yet done so (OK or SC, for instance).
Since the ‘08 conventions I’ve suspected a deal of some kind between the Obamanistas and the Clintons. He would “rule” the country for 4 years (assuming a win) and then get out of the way for Hillary. And then she would come on the scene as a “moderate” voice after the radical Obama but if elected simply keep his programs in place and strengthen them as much as possible.
Obama= idealogue
Bill Clinton= politician
Hillary= combination of the 2
It only takes ONE state. The media could not ignore a failure to provide REQUIRED information on the part of ANY prospective candidate.
It should be that these legal challenges multiply until they are as flies on his stink only then will the supremes be motivated to get off their bench butts and act to honor their Oath and defend the bloody freaking US Constitution They all swear to defend
I thought Iowa did this recently.
Like perhaps that his father was a British subject?
Eventually Obama will have to release his real long form BC....the Obama Supporters who fight the Birthers can only rely on ad hominem attacks and slander for so long.
It is sad that so many in talk radio, Fox News, GOP...are supporting Obama on this issue. The release of his long form BC really is not hard to do
I am more convinced every day that the only way to handle this thing is at the state level. If even one or two conservative state legislatures can vote to require that candidates provide documentary proof of natural born citizenship, 0 might be gone after one term for that reason alone.
Though, it can take as little as a state Sec. of State or election comission head to ask for proof of eligibility....birth cert....etc. The states have a lot of authority in how elections are handled....and Obama supporters would have a harder time in court
The issue in this latest case before the Supreme Court is Orly’s $20,000 fine, not the actual eligibility issue. Because the lower court judges have discretion in reprimanding lawyers’ conduct before them, it is highly improbable that the Supremes will take this case.
If Obama were somehow removed from office, all of the laws, acts, orders, etc signed by him would remain as law under the de facto officer doctrine.
The only means of getting rid of Obama are through impeachment in Congress or the ballot box in 2012.
I don’t know how the last election affected things, but the lefties have been remarkably successful in electing SoS’s in recent years, with Soros’ money.
The parent’s citizenship isn’t on the certificate, but a lot of other stuff is...http://truebluenz.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
This was THE main point about not electing zero ... or ANY democrat ... in 2008.
We KNEW the Supers would get two and maybe three new members back then.
The entire citizenry of the country is involved - we all have legal standing!
Sometimes I just want to give up
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.
