Posted on 12/16/2008 4:19:57 PM PST by briarbey b
reright = rewrite
Now, now, now, whipe the foam off your mouth and settle down before you throw an anyeruism or something.
Have you even looked at Beckwith's explanation of this?
I have. I think it's bullshit, to put it bluntly.
You spit garbage just for the fun of be a contrarian. But eventually you are defined by the sycophancy you expose in your mindset when you repeat this falsehood ad infinitum
My 'garbage' is supported by federal law and Supreme Court decisions. Your's originates from that orifice where your head is usually stored.
Useless period. That fits as well.
Tons. But all my concerns relate to his policies and the direction he may take the country, and none to his Constitutional eligibility to be president.
2)Do you TRUST that he will... ‘faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’(from the Presidential oath of office)
To the best of his ability, yes.
(3)Do you believe that those that hold serious reservations about Obama in the white house are making a big fuss over nothing?
If those serious reservations are solely concerning his Constitutional eligibility then yes.
(4) Is it your contention that Obama is being singled out unfairly... that he is being ‘picked on’ for what amounts to frivolous and irresponsible rumors... rumors generated from the over active imaginations of those that would oppose him even if he were forthcoming with his vital documents... that he has had sealed from the public?
I wouldn't raise these actions to the level of being 'picked on', but they do seem to be pretty frivilous in light of the arguements you all are trying to make.
Admittedly, these candidates were removed BEFORE they had an opportunity to be elected to office.
I'd have to see what you are talking about.
72. Given this constitutionally mandated duty, PETITIONERS have standing to bring this Writ before this Court.
No they don't. There are three criteria that need to establish legal standing to initiate a lawsuit. First and foremost there has to be an injury in fact to the plaintiff. This basically means that there was an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete concrete and particularized, not conjectural or hypothetical. And that injury is actual or imminent. So what is the injury suffered by those electors? What interest was invaded? How were they damaged? That's where all these suits are falling apart, they can't show damages.
OBAMA — AND CONSPIRATORS (IF ANY) — MAY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME ( see # 76)
Then file charges and take him to criminal court. This doesn't belong in a civil suit.
WHY A CERTIFIED COPY OR AN ORIGINAL VAULT CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH IS NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT SENATOR OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII — AS HE HAS ATTESTED — AND NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE (see 74 & 75)
And your evidence that he wasn't born in Hawaii is...? You need to show something that challenges his claims before the court will order him to show anything.
That is a pretty lame rationale for not wanting him to produce a document that is trivially simple to obtain and distribute.
There is little chance of calling a CC since the state petitions are not valid forever. Nor would a new constitution be ratified should this sham succeed.
What I want or don't want is irrelevant. I don't expect Obama to produce his birth certificate for the reasons I've stated on numerous occasions.
Exactly!
From the keyes’ suit:
“Given this constitutionally mandated duty, PETITIONERS have standing to bring this Writ before this Court.”
Your reply:
“No they don’t. There are three criteria that need to establish legal standing to initiate a lawsuit. First and foremost there has to be an injury in fact to the plaintiff. This basically means that there was an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
My reply:
The key phrase seems to be ‘legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, not conjectural or hypothetical.’
So how does one separate ‘concrete from conjectural?
Critics have said, for instance, that Keyes was not damaged because (supposedly) he would not have won the election anyway.
How do they know?
The court seems (according to what you are saying)to put the plaintiff into a ‘catch 22’, where plaintiff — in order to get Obama to show his vital records — has to show damages.
But — in order to show damages — plaintiff has to have Obama’s vital records proving he (Obama) would not have qualified!
So why are these lawyers putting these cases forward if the bar is so difficult?
I think my instincts were correct when I indicated in a former post, as follows:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2149875/posts?page=201#201
‘If the above remedy for this mishap — release of Obama’s vital records — is not within the purview of the law, then what compelling recourse do we have but to apply social and ‘other’ means of pressure?
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that these lawsuits are without LEGAL merit.
The reality is that these lawsuits are slowly leaking out to the general public (no thanks to the MSM) where they (the public) can form their own opinions as to the uprightness and transparency of the Obama Juggernaut.’
END
At least we can instigate a campaign leading to ‘the people’ showing up at our leaders doors with pitchforks and torches(figuratively of course!)demanding redress of grievances.
Lawsuits — even if rejected — may be helpful to that end.
Don’t under estimate social pressure!
You also write:
“You need to show something that challenges his claims before the court will order him to show anything.”
My reply:
Another problem we have is that I’m not so sure we would want the court — AFTER HE IS SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT — to ‘order him to show anything.’
It would be far better for the country if this was sorted out BEFORE he assumes office.
I know you will disagree but sometimes it seems like he WANTS to create a crises.
I understand that perciptions can be missleading but much of this contriversy rest sqairly on Obama’s shoulders.
Like most Americans I’m willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
The problem is every time I give him the benefit of the doubt, he does, says, or is involved in another controversy that creates another doubt!
... And when the MSM moves in, like clock-work, to shield him from any accountability, it just drives me to distraction.
Obama should take responsibility but, frankly, I’m more p*ss*d off at the mainstream media for enabling him.
Of course these same mud-slugs will be the first to turn on him when it suits their purposes.
So much for the ‘leg tingle’ crowd!
Thanks for your reply.
I appretiate your cander.
It’s when I think I’m being bambuzuled that I get ‘testy’ — but lets not go there!
STE=Q
Thanks for your cander.
I'm done arguing with these birthers. You are correct to say they wouldn't believe Obama is a natural born citizen if they heard it from a burning bush. I can't believe the time I've wasted on these idiots.
Well, I guess it's not all wasted. Posts from people like us, at the very lease, provide proof that this website isn't just made up of crackpots, though I must say it sure seems like that at times.
If Obama is not a natural born citizen and he took office as president he is a usurper of the office. No facet of government including courts can carryout any order he gives and the US military is bound by the constitution to remove him from office.
True.
No facet of government including courts can carryout any order he gives and the US military is bound by the constitution to remove him from office.
Somewhat true. His orders would have no force but it would be the job of the courts and Congress to remove him, not the military.
I called you all because I think it is a very important (legally) that historically Secretaries of State have been responsible for screening candidates for President.
Apparently -- to put it in layman's terms -- Obama basically vouched for himself.
I'm not saying he broke the law(we don't know)... However, it was the job of the Secretary of State to verify that he was, in fact, eligible.
Non-Sequitur wrote:
I'd have to see what you are talking about.
You seem to have glossed over the most important part of the Keyes' suit, for some reason.(see post #254)
I'm talking about the PRECEDENT of SECRETARIES OF STATE (SOS)REMOVING INELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT.
I have taken the liberty of highlighting the names of those PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES that were REMOVED from the BALLOTS by acting SECRETARIES OF STATE. (SOS)
THE KEYES’ LAWSUIT
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/AlanKeyesSuit.pdf
NOTICE THAT PRECEDENT IS ESTABLISHED FOR REMOVING CANDIDATES THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. (SEE # 78 below)
II BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 78. The Office of the SECRETARY OF STATE of California is the California AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR CERTIFYING CANDIDATES for inclusion on the ballot. HISTORICALLY, California SECRETARIES OF STATE have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents, VERIFYING that the CANDIDATES that were submitted by the respective political parties as ELIGIBLE for the BALLOT were indeed eligible. In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of *****ELDRIDGE CLEAVER**** as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. The then SOS, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, ACCORDING TO MR. CLEAVER'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. Using his administrative powers, MR. JORDAN REMOVED MR. CLEAVER FROM THE BALLET. MR. CLEAVER ***UNSUCCESSFULLY*** CHALLENGED THIS DECISION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND LATER, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed MR. LARRY HOLMES AS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. When the then SOS CHECKED his ELIGIBILITY, it was found that MR. HOLMES was similarly **NOT ELIGIBLE**, and MR. HOLMES WAS REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT. CURRENTLY, we have a ***SIMILAR SITUATION*** in that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY has SUBMITTED the name of Senator BARACK OBAMA as CANDIDATE for PRESIDENT.
(EMPHASIS MINE)
Thanks, I hope you found this post useful.
STE=Q
Here's what California law requires the Secretary of State to do to certify candidates. Link
Near as I can tell she didn't break any laws.
“Posts from people like us, at the very lease, provide proof that this website isn’t just made up of crackpots, though I must say it sure seems like that at times.”
Translation:
Posts from Obama adulators like us, at the very lease [sic], provide proof that (a) we are not conservatives at all, and (b) we are servants of 0bama, just doing our job of trying to make actual concerned citizens LOOK like crackpots; thus trying to taint all concern over 0bama’s eligibility with kookdom.
There! Fixed it.
“Near as I can tell she didn’t break any laws.”
IOW, no controlling legal authority.
You’re right. If all the SOS has to do is verify that a candidate is ‘generally-recognized’ or is on the ballot in other states, then these types of cases won’t hold any water in court. Obviously uhhh-Bama (the constitutional lawyer) knew the legal avenues were all uphill.
I. QUALIFICATIONS
The candidate must be:
A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
B. At least 35 years of age, and
C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1(5)
II. REQUIREMENTS
There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate in the February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary Election:
• by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
• by circulating nomination petitions.
A. GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES
1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. § 60411
Criteria for determining “generally-recognized” candidates include, but are not limited to:
a. Being generally recognized as seeking and advocated for the office
b. Qualifying for federal matching funds
c. Appearing in public opinion polls, candidates’ forums, debates, etc.
d. Being on the ballot in other states’ primaries
e. Actively campaigning in California
f. Having a campaign office in California
g. The Secretary of State may also rely on advice and input from the state party chair.
It’s that way in every state. Obama was on the ballot for the same reason McCain was - nominee of one of the two major recognized parties. That’s the sum total of the checking the Secretary of State is required to do.
No controlling legal authority, so we are all kooks and nutcases.
Simple.
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.