Posted on 11/20/2008 11:46:54 PM PST by STARWISE
The Constitution does not prohibit a non-citizen or an ineligible citizen from running for POTUS. It only makes him ineligible to take the office.
I believe it is imperative that the SCOTUS ensure the constitutional eligibility of an elected candidate to take the office that the Chief Justice of the Supreme court is mandated to give the oath of office to.
If Roberts is going to swear this guy in, then Roberts has a constitutional obligation to make sure that he is eligible to take the office.
If Roberts doesn't do it, then he has violated HIS oath and he should be removed.
Well the founders wrote this in the constitution to ensure that someone from the outside cannot usurp our power. The supremes only establish if the constition is being upheld. If not, and bo is found to not even qualify, it’s the dnc and bo himself who have defrauded the American people.
Supremes just call them out on their fraud.
LOL and Ping
I believe that more often than not, the supreme court justices have gravitated to the obvious - decisions that clear thinking individual who seek basic truth and justice would agree with.
And in this case, they could very well surprise all of the cynics who espouse all of these fatalistic and defeatist outcomes on a matter that to most of us, is so morally basic and logical.
Pray for the truth the be revealed. There is no question that God's will is in truth.
Hmmmmm...
No congressional boondoggles to Paris or Thailand?
Odd.
Remember the breach of passport records from last spring? People feared there it some attempt to damage him...but IIRC, it then turned out that the people who "snooped" were in fact Obama-bots. Maybe those folks should be looked at again. Maybe it was a different motivation.
If that were true, Thomas could’ve simply denied the motion - just as Souter already did. The fact that it was denied once (by Souter, or because of his clerk), and that it is now scheduled for a conference (and there is talk of it being fast-tracked) does NOT support your theory.
Wait a mo’?
Didn’t he go to Kenya to campaign for Odinga?
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the Supremes will rule it's a state issue, not a federal one. I base this on the fact that, outside of the EC meeting, there is no federal election of the president, it's all done at the state level.
I would be very surprised if they demand proof of eligibility. While there is a constitutional eligibility test, the document does not say who has the authority to check up on it and do something. The tenth amendment likewise gives a hint of what direction they are likely to take.
While this is all very frightening, it's pretty entertaining too.
There, fixed your typo.
My guess is that in the time it would take to enact a constitutional amendment, this issue would spiral into an even larger investigation regarding other aspects of his life. e.g., a scouring of his autobiographies, his selective service form, and especially his dealings in the 2006 Kenyan national election (very relevant in terms of applying a measure of his “loyalty” to the U.S. in context of concerns raised in the event of his questionable lack of natural born citizenship)
That may be why they are considering it.
They may order states to make sure they put valid candidates on future ballots.
Only if the SC says it is! I just don't think they'll want to step into it and say so. Of course, on mind-reading and Constitutional interpretation I am just a keyboarder.
Linda Lingle said they have the certificate, but didn’t say anything else, i.e., the verbiage on it.
I believe that the President is sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that Obama cannot be president then I do not see Justice Roberts participating in the swearing in ceremony.
You obviously do not follow the USSC very closely. It is not unusual for a justice to write an opinion as to why he/she disagrees with the court’s decision to not hear a case; you just don’t read about them very often. In this case, any such opinion would receive wide distribution.
The USSC may not hear many cases, but those with previously unresolved constitutional issues almost always get a hearing.
Good point.
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.