Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.
Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“Speaking for myself, I do not believe any story that has “AP” on it. It needs corroboration.” devere
“12/18/08 - URGENT NOTICE – False rumors are circulating – Justice Kennedy denied our Application for an Injunction to Stay Electoral Vote Count by Congress on January 8, 2008. However, our Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2008.” Philip J. Berg, obamacrimes.com
Anyone who pretends to take an AP story at face value is either a credulous fool or an Obama troll.
Your post was so convoluted it made no FReeping sense whatsoever.
Put.Down.The.Bong.
You said — “Your post was so convoluted it made no FReeping sense whatsoever.”
I would suspect as much, having posted to you before... LOL...
—
And — “Put.Down.The.Bong.”
I may know some people who pick up that bong, but it’s certainly not me. That’s one great benefit of growing up in a Christian home. :-)
This is interesting, thank you. Now.....another question. It states in our Constitution that a person must me a Naturally Born Citizen. Do the states, as individuals, enforce the US Constition and if not then who? I am beginning to think that Obama was familiar with all this. That’s why he’s not worried about it.
You asked — “This is interesting, thank you. Now.....another question. It states in our Constitution that a person must me a Naturally Born Citizen. Do the states, as individuals, enforce the US Constition and if not then who? I am beginning to think that Obama was familiar with all this. That’s why he’s not worried about it.”
That’s a real good question, because — apparently — *no one* knows how to *enforce this* in practice... and that’s the problem.
Which then leads me to say that the state laws for Electoral College votes must be instituted for having the candidate prove his qualifications under the Constitution (also in regards to the popular vote, too).
Now..., you were asking if the States “enforce” the Constitution. No, I don’t believe they will enforce it — but — they can certainly take *action* (legally speaking) and put in laws that specify *how* someone can be on the ballot (if they make it the “Constitutional provisions”).
So, if a state does that and then someone sues the state for doing something like that (i.e., *requiring proof* of meeting the Constitutional requirement before placing someone on the ballot) — THEN — the Supreme Court would get involved and have to decide whether that’s a *legitimate function* of the State, with their popular vote and the Electoral College vote.
I believe, that the U.S. Supreme Court would *affirm* that this is entirely within the power of the State to do this...
—
And in regards to Obama knowing this beforehand..., I’m sure he has the best lawyers that money can buy... :-)
You stated.....*no one* knows how to *enforce this* in practice... and that’s the problem.
Either that or no one wants to enforce it???????? I hate conspiracy theorys but I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t all a set up.
You said — “Either that or no one wants to enforce it???????? I hate conspiracy theorys but I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t all a set up.”
You know..., a lot of FReepers here are going by the “spirit of the law” and what they say is that they doubt the qualifications of Obama. BUT, since it is always said that we are a “nation of laws” and not of men and no one is above the law... what it comes down to — is the “letter of the law”. And that’s where we’ve run into the problem here.
Now, you can frequently get people who are able to violate the spirit of the law, by maintaining the “letter of the law” and that’s the price you pay for the system that we have where — you have many guilty that go free, so that you don’t have one innocent that is guilty...
There are those who would rather have everyone who is guilty tried and convicted, but that results in many innocent being caught in that net, too (in a nation of laws...). So, our founding fathers operated on the principle that one was innocent until they were judged to be guilty by due process. And they understood that this meant that many of the guilty would go free in the process. But, it was preferable that way.
We’ve got a situation where Obama is apparently violating the spirit of the law — at least with full disclosure on the issue of fully meeting the requirements of the Constitution — but — there is not proof of that and the “letter of the law” does not require any more than what he has given (even though many think it’s a violation of the spirit of the law — or *even* the *actual law* if they could get the proof). But, no one is required to convict themselves, either, under our law. So, Obama is under no legal compulsion to “convict himself” (if he is a crook and has violated the law).
If we would have had the state laws on the books that *required proof* before one could be placed on the ballot, then Obama could not violate even the *letter of the law*... and there you have it.
I don’t think anyone knows how to get the proof and Obama is not required by law to provide the proof — so everyone is stuck... That’s the way it is.
After January 20th, the only one who can do *anything* about it, will be the Congress and I’m pretty sure they will do nothing (look at Clinton for that example...).
I don’t think it’s a grand conspiracy by the Republican Party, by Bush, by Cheney, by McCain, by Palin, by the FBI, by the Supreme Court, by the Electoral College and by the Democrats... no... LOL...
It’s just that they recognize the futility and the impossibility of doing anything about it, so why should they waste their time on it.
All we have to do is get those state laws on the books...
You seem incapable of realizing what swearing in an ineligible affirmative action fraud will do to the contract We The People have with our federal government. Does the word ‘abrogate’ mean anything to you? ... You don’t seem to care if the Constitution is abrogated and want to focus people on how to ‘fix the poor proofing of candidates’, as if it will even matter once the demcorat party has accomplished the demise of the initial contract. And that’s why some feel you’re merely a lying agitprop working FR for your squirrel messiah from Chicago’s criminal political sewer.
Forging the microfiche records of those supposed birth announcements is not even difficult. So, cross referencing is called for. That’s probably why the obamanoid has hidden ALL of his adult History from scrutiny. He is a fraud and a liar, and a very wicked man at heart.
Again....thank you for the explanations. It’s one thing to read and understand the Constitution, but to enforce it is another problem all together.
You said — “You seem incapable of realizing what swearing in an ineligible affirmative action fraud will do to the contract We The People have with our federal government. Does the word ‘abrogate’ mean anything to you? ...”
Well, as soon as someone is able to prove this has happened, then something can be done. Let me know when the proof arrives...
—
And then — “You don’t seem to care if the Constitution is abrogated and want to focus people on how to ‘fix the poor proofing of candidates’, as if it will even matter once the demcorat party has accomplished the demise of the initial contract.”
When a law is broken and someone “gets away with it” — it doesn’t abrogate the law. It only means that a person has gotten away with it. The law is still intact. And furthermore (along those lines...) if a prosecutor sees that a current law is not sufficient for convicting someone, he will petition for a stronger or more precise law that will make it possible to convict, whereas it wasn’t before.
BUT, along with that — a prosecutor also knows that regardless of how “tight” a law you have, if you don’t have *any proof* of a crime — you cannot convict. And that’s the problem you’ve got right now. You can’t get around that one...
The Constitution remains intact and it is still going to be the same viable document after four years (or more) of Obama, as it was before and from the beginning. It takes 3/4 of the states to approve any Constitutional Amendment or any kind of change to the Constitution and that will never happen, because the conservatives have a greater strength than only 1/4 of the states. The Democrats can’t change the Constitution without putting forth some kind of Amendment process. And if they try it, they’ll fail, especially so the more radical they try to make it. They know it and you should know it, too. There’s nothing that is going to happen to the Constitution.
—
Finally — “And that’s why some feel you’re merely a lying agitprop working FR for your squirrel messiah from Chicago’s criminal political sewer.”
It might be true — if — I wanted Obama in as President and I voted for him. However, all one has to do is see my posts before the election about Obama, plus the fact that I didn’t vote for him. Therefore, you’ve got a problem explaining that one... :-)
In fact, I would very much like to see Governor Palin running for President of the United States. That would be my pick out of this mess (but I suspect she won’t do that the next election).
If there is something that I’m “agitating on” (if you want to put it that way), it would be simply that we’ve discovered a flaw in the system that Obama was able to use to his benefit. It’s not the first time a flaw has been discovered in the Constitution. We have amendments to make corrections and add things in (or remove things) that we want. The 12th Amendment corrected some of this process for getting a President. The 20th Amendment corrected some more. There were things that were *not good enough* (or sufficient) so that the 12th and 20th Amendments were put into place.
So, it shouldn’t be surprising that we have to “close up” another loophole or problem by putting into place state law that require candidates to prove that they are qualified under the Constitution. It could be a Constitutional Amendment, too — but I think that would be more difficult and take too long. State laws would be much easier and quicker.
If this particular fraud, Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, is exposed as ineligible in such a way that we may assume he knew himself ineligible and went ahead soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars, then he may also be exposed to the Federal Executive branch via the Justice Department.
By his own admission, Obama had a British citizen father and he, Barry, held British citizenship at birth. The founders sought to prevent a man of divided loyalties hold the office of president and wrote basic eligibility requirements into the Constitution as they fashioned the contract We The People have with our federal government.
It is telling that obama's sycophants/defenders/apologists have to resort to lies, ridicule, condescension, and dissembling to deflect the truth of this man's blatant ineligibility! Now we can expect Non Sequitur, curiosity, allmendream, xlib, Drew68, Star Traveler, tublecane, zarodinu, CitizenBlade, and a host of other trollish brutes to take aim at this exposition. The behavior will be instructive of Axelrod astroturfing, if nothing else.
Apparently — and for your own sakes — it would seem that many people would prefer *not* to be aggravated with some of my posts... :-)
So, I’m not sure what a ping-list like this is good for..., what...? a call for more aggravation..
You said — “It’s one thing to read and understand the Constitution, but to enforce it is another problem all together.”
Very much so, I would say. I hope by now that people see that I don’t want Obama in there, either. I didn’t before the election and I spoke to the issue of him not being qualified either. I did not vote for him and I let everyone around me know that they shouldn’t vote for him either.
But, once I saw the way the election went, the way the courts were going, the way the Republican Party was going and the way that McCain and Palin were gong and now the Electoral College and the Supreme Court — it’s definitely becoming obvious that no one can enforce this without correcting the system.
I’ve *also* said that if the people vote for Obama and that’s what we get, then the people (corporately speaking) deserve what they get — and — this can be seen as part of the judgement of God against this nation. It’s not something that I wanted or voted for or encouraged others to want or vote for, but it does seem clear now that God has allowed “the people” (corporately speaking) to receive the judgement that they have voted for (this is also not a popular idea :-) ... ).
Meant to ping you
Have you explained why the eligibility issue is “nonsense”? Other than ad hominem stuff.
Well, taking off from this section you’ve quoted —
12/18/08 - URGENT NOTICE – False rumors are circulating – Justice Kennedy denied our Application for an Injunction to Stay Electoral Vote Count by Congress on January 8, 2008. However, our Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2008.” Philip J. Berg, obamacrimes.com
Big problem with this..., actually...
The Electoral College vote is counted on January 8, 2008 and it’s clear that Obama has the Electoral College vote. On January 8th, the count is done.
January 9th, the court gets to decide whether to review Judge Surrick’s order to dismiss Berg’s case for lack of standing. Let’s say (just for sake of example) that the Supreme Court, does in Conference, decide to review Judge Surrick’s order to dismiss on grounds of lack of standing.
Okay, now they get the documents from the court and schedule a time to review the case, after the documents are gathered (for them to review).
And, let’s just go further and say that during their review, that they decide Berg did have standing and so they send it back to Judge Surrick.
Well..., did you notice all those steps and did you notice that January 20 (Obama’s inauguration) is only 11 days later. What I would like to know is who thinks that (first of all) they are going to even grant a review of the case at the time of the Conference. Most likely all that we’ll hear is “Denied!”.
And then secondly, *if* they grant to review it — that they are gong to reverse Judge Surrick and say that Berg has standing. THEN, after all that, Judge Surrick gets the case again and they go from there... LOL...
Anyone got the “idea” yet — :-)
January 20th is *long gone* by that time. By that time only Congress can remove a President on the grounds of impeachment. Furthermore, the only thing that Berg gets is that he’s got “standing” — but — Berg has nothing in the way of redress, or *even* a decision that the court can even take any kind of action at all, at that point. The issue is moot at that point because only Congress can take action so the judge doesn’t have to decide anything.
Most likely the issue is moot at the level of the Supreme Court and it will simply be “Denied” because they know that, but they don’t have to comment on the reason for Denial.
And that will be that...
So, *even* if it goes *all good* at every step of the way at the Supreme Court — you’ve already run out of time and Obama is not able to be removed by any court.
That’s one great benefit of growing up in a Christian home. :-)
***Excellent. I’m a christian as well. I charge you with printing out our correspondence, showing it to christians you trust, and bringing back their feedback as well as a way to get back in touch with them (FReepmail is fine). I’m confident under Christ that I will be vindicated. In the meantime, you need to stop acting like a troll, brother in Christ, and keep silent.
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.