Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama
AP via SFGate ^ | 12/17/8

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: berg; bergvobama; birthcertificate; certifigate; kennedy; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; philipberg; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-417 next last
To: nominal

You said — “You just implied Obama is a crook. The problem here is that you don’t understand, or refuse to understand, what’s going on (if I give you the benefit of the doubt and you’re trying to be intellectually honest). Obama admitted that he is a native citizen. He admitted that his father was british. Native is not natural born.

Well, I may think he’s a crook, but I can’t prove it (in regards to this issue...) :-)

And — “The mechanism is not deficient. The problem here is people like yourself not understanding or comprehending the issue.”

If we’re having this conversation (which we are) — and if Obama has gone through the election and won the popular vote by a large margin, and if Obama has succeeded on being elected per the Electoral College, and if he gets sworn in at his inauguration — then — the “facts” of what is happening shows that the vetting process is deficient.

We simply would not be talking right now if it were sufficient to make it so that no one could be President if they are not qualified. Where Obama is at right now proves the process is deficient.

And then you were saying — “No. Stop putting words into Obama’s mouth. He did not say that. Native is not natural born. They are two different words, ok? Natural is not native. Native is not natural. Obama did not ever say natural born that I am aware of. Nor did he even imply it. That is your misrepresentation. Seriously, get that straight. Obama is, at best, a NATIVE citizen. If you say that again, please provide a reference where Obama clearly states that he is a NATURAL born citizen.”

I use the terminology of natural born. But, as you indicate the “devil is in the details” and that would require more “sorting out” to figure out what exactly is such a distinction — legally speaking. And even going into all that still means that the process is deficient, because — once again — we wouldn’t even be having such conversations — if — the vetting process took into account all these things that we’re talking about. There are only a set of qualifications but there is not a good and sufficient vetting process — and that is the problem.

The problem is not the qualifications or even all the different arguments and positions on the various words use. The real problem is that the vetting process has not taken all these factors into account and has failed us — which is why we’re arguing this whole thing about Obama right now.

And finally — “Here’s another point where you don’t understand or comprehend. Are you aware of the electoral college? Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic? If one person say 1 + 1 = 2 and 10,000 people say it equals 21, which is right? Would your politics make it equal 21?”

Yeah, I do know what the Electoral College is and does and how that is different from the popular vote. And I know why we shouldn’t get rid of the Electoral College and go over to a popular vote, only, for President of the United States.

You should know why I mention the popular vote, though. It’s not because I think that these are the actual *direct votes* that the Constitution says actually elects the President and Vice-President. No, the Electoral voters (for each state) do that.

And that is the reason why the “state laws” have to be enacted for vetting the candidate, as I’ve been saying. It’s not a federal issue, it’s a “states rights” issue and the Federal Government should stay out of the states rights issues. To put a candidate on the ballot is solely a state issue and it should remain that way, and keep the Electoral College and vet the candidate per the state’s laws requiring a proper vetting of such a candidate per the Constitutional requirement. The Supreme Court should *also* stay out of “states rights” issue in this regard, too. It’s solely within the province of the state and not the Federal Government.

So, what’s the reason for mentioning the great plurality of votes for Obama in the election? Well, very simply it’s a good gauge of the support that is out there in the voting public, when it comes down to what *Congress* will do.

There have been some FReepers who have said that Congress will have to throw out Obama, “out of office” for him violating the qualifications for office — or else — the public will “throw the rats out” at the next election.

Well, I say that given the large majority of the voting public going for Obama — I don’t see them switching over and rejecting Obama (after they just “voted” for him) and “throwing out the rats” — because “the rats” wouldn’t do their job and throw Obama out of office. LOL....

AND..., furthermore..., Congressmen *are* voted in by popular vote... :-)

As a last comment on what you just said — you were asking if it would make it right if people voted for the wrong thing (i.e., voted for something false...).

Well..., I’m of the position that “truth” is always “absolute” no matter what political party you are in and no matter how many people think one way or another. And that is precisely why I’m stating the “truth of the matter” with Obama.

I’m stating the truth of the matter in that it’s “politics” and “votes” that get representatives in office and certain policies enacted — no matter what the truth of it is. That happens simply out of how much political power one side or the other has — and it has nothing to do with being “right or wrong”. The public (most of them) have given up a long time ago on the “right” or “wrong” of the matter. And *that* is the truth of it.

So, why I’m engaging in this particular conversation is precisely because I think “truth” exists on an absolute basis, regardless of what transpires through politics.

In “politics” the “process failed” in vetting the candidate properly. We need state laws properly vetting these candidates. And in the political process that Obama went through, no one is going to rid of us Obama for President.

And that’s the truth of the matter, whether it fits what one sees as “absolute truth” or not. Politics have never been about absolute truth.

The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is about absolute truth. And that absolute truth says that the United States will be judged and punished for all her sins (just as the other nations) and that Jesus Christ will return to earth to set up a world-wide Kingdom, ruling from Israel on the Throne of David (and that includes ruling over the United States and with a higher authority than the Constitution).

Now, if we’re talking absolute truth - then that is it...

If we’re talking about politics, then it’s whatever can be put through with the support of the voting public.


351 posted on 12/18/2008 9:25:55 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You said — “Bless your little heart, you’re confused. You need to ping RedSteel to make your argument.”

You were responding to an answer that I gave to “Red Steel”. As such, since you were the one responding..., the answer was back to you...

To make it clearer for you, you questioned the “reasoning” in Post #228. You did that by replying (to my answer to Red Steel) in Post #258. My answer to you was in Post #337, given to you, since you questioned the reasoning to Red Steel in #228.

Now, it seems that you’re the one who is getting confused here and who can’t follow the thread... LOL...


352 posted on 12/18/2008 9:31:31 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

You said — “But then my lack of confidence in you would have been poorly placed. Go take a critical thinking class, troll.”

It’s the same lack of critical thinking that leads some people on FRee Republic to criticize on the basis of the word “troll” — rather than anything that holds up to reality.

Critical thinking and the reality of the situation that you’re complaining about go together. It’s just that you’re not exercising that critical thinking when the truth of the matter gets in the way of how you *wish* things would go.

That’s the *very problem* you’re having with this issue — in that the “vetting processs” did not work the way you wanted it to and you don’t want to face up to that reality...


353 posted on 12/18/2008 9:36:19 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You said — If you’re married, I hope you don’t use this passive/aggresive crap on your partner: “It’s merely an explanation on my part. I’m sure you will do what you want to do anyway.”

Well, from the terminology and the wording that you’ve been using, I would be surprised if you do have a partner... LOL...


354 posted on 12/18/2008 9:38:29 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: RC2

You said — “You’re correct. “It won’t change.” Unless the people of this country demand that the Constitution be upheld. How the people can do this is the question. Is it only through the vote? I don’t believe so.”

No, you’ve got the wrong thing out of my statement. What I said *would not change* was the Supreme Court’s practice of making “no comment” on their denials. That is not going to change. That was the meaning of what I said.

You’ll remember that you said that the Supreme Court should give us the “reason” for their denial. I said that they won’t do that, because they never do that, and they won’t change the process that they’ve been doing all along. Therefore *that* is the thing that won’t change.

HOWEVER, on the matter of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirement for taking office — this *can change* — with no problem (I think...).

All it will take to change this (so that it doesn’t happen again) is for the states to put a law into effect for their Electoral College votes (and the popular vote, too) that says that a candidate must be vetted and proven to be qualified for the office of President of the United States before that candidate can be placed on the ballot.

That is the change that can happen and happen easily, I think...


355 posted on 12/18/2008 9:43:35 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I’m glad to hear what you say in regards to the truth, but as I’ve been trying to say, you don’t seem to understand what’s going on, and in fact, are arguing in a manner that is in direct opposition to what you say about truth.

Here, we’ll put aside all the natural born qualifications and how that applies to politics aside for a minute because I don’t think you are doing this intentionally:

What happens with congress on january 6th? Have you read the 12th and 20th amendments for example? Apologies if I seem curt or condescending (I’m really busy right now) but I think if you see that your position requires the process to be over, when it clearly isn’t, you’ll understand. Even if Obama is elected and sworn in, there are still legal avenues to pursue.


356 posted on 12/18/2008 9:48:11 AM PST by nominal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

So.........if the states WON’T do it........you are saying that SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution in regards to whether a candidate is qualified for the office of the President? If they won’t do this, in my opinion, they are useless.


357 posted on 12/18/2008 10:06:53 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: nominal

You said — “What happens with congress on january 6th? Have you read the 12th and 20th amendments for example? Apologies if I seem curt or condescending (I’m really busy right now) but I think if you see that your position requires the process to be over, when it clearly isn’t, you’ll understand. Even if Obama is elected and sworn in, there are still legal avenues to pursue.”

I know that there are some remaining possibilities for pursuing this issue of Obama’s qualifications. But, from the standpoint of politics and the “history” of this issue, thus far, this is not going to happen (i.e., that Obama is removed).

The history of it shows that at every “step” of the way, on the process to eliminate Obama because of this issue, it has failed.

It first failed in the courts (at least the lower courts before the election). It failed at the election on November 4th, the majority of the voters voting in such a way that they dismissed this issue and voted for Obama in larger numbers than either Clinton or Bush had ever gotten. It failed in the Supreme Court, it having denied stopping the Electoral College voting. It failed at the votes of the Electoral College.

And so..., one would be asked (under the “thinking” up above) to think that this issue — to kick Obama out of office because of his “alleged” [... :-) ...] lack of qualification under the Constitution — is actually going to happen with a new Congress that is overwhelming Democrat.

First of all, no one has any evidence to submit *showing* and *proving* that Obama is not qualified. And secondly, Obama has asserted that he is qualified and has presented a document that he says shows that he is qualified (that’s the document from Hawaii).

Now..., given the “track record” of lower court cases, the election, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College votes — to think that someone (i.e., a legislator) is going to make what has been shown to be an *unsubstantiated claim* that Obama is unqualified under the Constitutional requirements would be sheer lunacy on their part — given the political climate and how it would be perceived (again politically — “suicide”... LOL...). And furthermore, if the claim is made, to think that any number of the Congress will “back it up” is really questioning “one’s sanity” to even think it’s something that can even happen (again, without “proof” and only on the basis of accusations).

And — THEREFORE — that sort of shows that Obama has done his “political maneuvering” very well in making sure he makes it through this process, unscathed.

So, this — once again — shows to me that this process that we currently have of how to “vet the candidate” is flawed and needs to be shored up by means of state laws regarding the popular and electoral college votes as to whether a candidate is qualified and that he must prove that he is (according to the terms of said law).

And, it’s not the first time that this process of a new President has been shown to be *defective* — as is shown by the fact that we even have a 12th and 20th Amendments. Apparently now, we also need (in addition to those changes already made before) — state laws, regarding the vetting of candidates for President of the United States.


358 posted on 12/18/2008 10:24:41 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: devere

I never said anyone was paranoid, nor did I “Gratuitously insult anyone. I simply stated my belief that to this point no one has been able to uncover any evidence that would be admissible in a court of law....and until someone does... the courts are not going to take any suit seriously..... I have never claimed to be a lawyer, and am perfectly willing to state I could be wrong about this.


359 posted on 12/18/2008 10:45:20 AM PST by DMon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: RC2

You said — “So.........if the states WON’T do it........you are saying that SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution in regards to whether a candidate is qualified for the office of the President? If they won’t do this, in my opinion, they are useless.”

I didn’t say that the states won’t do it. I’m saying that the states will and can do it, given that they have a state law in place that pertains to the vetting process for President of the United States. They have not done it before, because there is not a state law in place for the vetting process for the candidate for the office of President of the United States.

There’s one thing that you can’t do in this regard — and that is you can’t *require* that the state vet the candidate in a way that *requires certain proof* from the candidate (or he won’t be put on the ballot) — because if the state tried to keep someone like that off the ballot — absent a state law to that effect — the state would get sued and a judge would force them to put the name on the ballot. That’s what would happen.

So, it’s not that the states *won’t* do it — it’s that they can’t do it without the proper law being in place.

And in regards to the Supreme Court of the United States, they will only act upon cases brought before them, and only act in the way and manner as the case *itself* presents itself to the justices. They are not going to “step out” and go further than what the case is — before them.

I, for one, question whether the Supreme Court *can address* an issue that is a “states rights” issue, in regards to a particular state’s Secretary of State putting someone on the ballot or keeping them off the ballot or vetting the candidate for President of the United States in regards to his Constitutional qualifications — when that is something *solely* within the province of that state. And so, if someone brings a case to the Supreme Court that is solely within the province of that “states rights” — the Supreme Court should stay out of it.

So, you might ask, where should the Supreme Court intervene (and on what kind of case). It would have to be a case that showed *proof* that a President was *disqualified* and then secondly, at the point of where the Electoral College votes were counted. The case would have to be brought *after* the Electoral votes were counted.

But, it would have to be decided *before* the inauguration, because once the President is in office, the Supreme Court would have to say that the issue was “moot” and that they couldn’t take any decision on it and they would dismiss the case — being that only Congress can impeach and convict a President. Then it goes into the Congress’ hands. But, we know how far that would go, because it didn’t work for Clinton and Obama has a greater vote margin than Clinton did and we have a greater number of Democrats in there now.

Therefore, the Supreme Court really doesn’t have much room to maneuver, under the law and we don’t have any state laws regarding vetting a Presidential Candidate in order for him to prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for office.

It’s not the Supreme Court that is useless, it’s not the states that are useless, and it’s everyone is refusing to do anything about it — rather — it’s that our *system* has been found to be *defective* in this process and we need to “correct the system” now — to make sure that this does not happen again.

It’s not the first time that our Constitutional system was found to be defective. That’s why we have Constitutional Amendments put into place. In this particular process of having a new President in office, the Constitution was found to be *defective* by means of the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment — so that shows that others saw that they had to *correct the Constitution* in the past.

Now, we see it’s necessary to correct the state laws to make the “process” of vetting a Presidential Candidate for him to prove he can qualify for office — is correct.

That’s where we are at now...


360 posted on 12/18/2008 10:45:29 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“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.


361 posted on 12/18/2008 11:28:14 AM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
And in local news: This is your Captain speaking. We'll be flying at 30,000 feet. The flight attendant will be serving refreshments soon, and, Oh yeah, I'm not qualified to land this airplane. Have a good flight.
362 posted on 12/18/2008 12:22:32 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad, Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Your post was so convoluted it made no FReeping sense whatsoever.

Put.Down.The.Bong.


363 posted on 12/18/2008 1:32:17 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

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. :-)


364 posted on 12/18/2008 1:43:24 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

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.


365 posted on 12/18/2008 2:26:21 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: RC2

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... :-)


366 posted on 12/18/2008 2:33:12 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

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.


367 posted on 12/18/2008 2:39:30 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: RC2

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...


368 posted on 12/18/2008 2:51:09 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

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.


369 posted on 12/18/2008 2:58:33 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra

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.


370 posted on 12/18/2008 3:05:39 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

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.


371 posted on 12/18/2008 3:07:13 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

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.


372 posted on 12/18/2008 3:20:25 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: All; LucyT; Chief Engineer; Beckwith; BP2; Calpernia; Jim Robinson
And one more thing: the actual proofing of eligibility is a federal function, not a state function. It may be/it is the job of SoS and election commissions in the various states to vett candidates for federal office. BUT it is a federal function to force proof of eligibility based upon the Federal Constitutional provisions. This is done via the Congressional reception of the electoral votes and SCOTUS verification of the Constitutional requirements.

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.

373 posted on 12/18/2008 3:20:55 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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..


374 posted on 12/18/2008 3:26:44 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: RC2

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 :-) ... ).


375 posted on 12/18/2008 3:34:19 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Gemsbok

Meant to ping you


376 posted on 12/18/2008 3:37:21 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I wonder how long it will take before the tinfoil hatters figure out this birther nonsense isn't going to get them anywhere.
377 posted on 12/18/2008 3:53:03 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Have you explained why the eligibility issue is “nonsense”? Other than ad hominem stuff.


378 posted on 12/18/2008 4:06:55 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: devere

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.


379 posted on 12/18/2008 4:19:30 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

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.


380 posted on 12/18/2008 4:32:24 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I agree. The good Lord will have His way...won’t He? I only hope that our Judges in the Supreme Court don’t retire until Obama is out of office. The only thing about this is that it is my understanding that the President can appoint as many Judges as he pleases. Is this your understanding? I have heard that he can appoint 15 if he desires.

Are you of the Catholic Faith? Don’t answer if you don’t want to.......Just curious. I am but not practicing.


381 posted on 12/18/2008 4:38:08 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: RC2
I have heard that he can appoint 15 if he desires.

The size of the Supreme Court is fixed at 9 Justices, by statute. Unless Congress votes to change that, Obama cannot appoint anyone to the Supreme Court unless there is a vacancy.

What you are probably thinking of is Franklin Roosevelt's proposal to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15, which was defeated in Congress.

382 posted on 12/18/2008 4:45:37 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: RC2

You said — “I agree. The good Lord will have His way...won’t He? I only hope that our Judges in the Supreme Court don’t retire until Obama is out of office. The only thing about this is that it is my understanding that the President can appoint as many Judges as he pleases. Is this your understanding? I have heard that he can appoint 15 if he desires.”

Well, you can do some reading of the following and see what you come up with...

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/19442

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

And — “Are you of the Catholic Faith? Don’t answer if you don’t want to.......Just curious. I am but not practicing.”

No, a conservative Protestant Evangelical, who is pre-trib, pre-mil and dispensational... I think that about covers it...


383 posted on 12/18/2008 4:49:43 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Thanks,

it’s ping-worthy!


384 posted on 12/18/2008 4:55:51 PM PST by Gemsbok (If wishes were horses, than beggars would ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

You said — “In the meantime, you need to stop acting like a troll, brother in Christ, and keep silent.”

Did you see my posting count... :-) I don’t think that’s possible.

But, have you ever wondered about the governmental make-up of the United States under the rule of Christ, on the throne of David, ruling from Jerusalem, in Israel?

You know, at that time, the actual and physical government of the United States will no longer allow any other religions to exist here (or elsewhere in the world...). Will that require a change in the Constitution or will the Constitution be totally scrapped at that time?

Will you be one of the ones appointed to oversee the government in the United States, acting on direct orders from Jesus Christ, as he maintains his “rod of iron” rule over all nations?

That won’t be too far away, as the “timeclock” gauging when it will happen is what is happening to Israel. God has said that Israel being back in the land means that it will never be removed from there again. If the Muslims have their way (in human terms) they will have the ability to physically remove Israel from existence as a nation in not too many years if not totally destroy it by nuclear weapons.

They can’t last there, in the land, too much longer (in conventional and human terms, especially the way the Muslims are absolutely rabid about destroying every last single Jew and removing it from being a nation).

But, since this is not decided in human terms, that means the closer the Muslims get to achieving that goal, that’s how close the return of Jesus Christ is — on this earth — to return to do battle and war with the Muslims and Islamic nations and kill every last single one of them that has joined with Islam and wants to destroy Israel and Jews.

After Christ comes and kills about a billion Muslims (plus a lot of other dead people in the world), then Christ will be physically present in Jerusalem setting up his rule and reign over the nations — including the United States.

That’s what we’re looking forward to, shortly...


385 posted on 12/18/2008 5:00:16 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Have you explained why the eligibility issue is “nonsense”?

Numerous times on many threads. I'm getting tired of it, however.

I think from now on I will just be content to send people to the following link, which pretty much refutes all the birther crap.

386 posted on 12/18/2008 5:24:29 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; MHGinTN; Kevmo

MHG and Kevmo - click the link curiosity (a misnomer if I ever saw one) posted to debunk the tinfoil hattery nonsense.

Here is his link, and it does not say who pays for this blog or writes it (that I could see):

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/

The blog has five “debunking” sites listed:

Media Matters

“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

FactCheck

And

Fight The Smears

So it’s crystal clear that curiosity is an 0bama pimp and nothing more. My question for you, curiosity: Are you an obama volunteer, or are you paid? If paid, is it by the hour or a salaried position? Are you connected with ACORN, or are you part of his transition team?


387 posted on 12/18/2008 5:42:13 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Why is the person who funds the site relevant?

The site doesn't attempt to any expert analysis.

It merely presents arguments backed up by evidence evidence that is easily verifiable by any lay reader. None of its arguments are premised on the site's trustworthiness, nor does it make an argument from authority or claim any expertise.

388 posted on 12/18/2008 5:52:23 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Obama team. Simple.


389 posted on 12/18/2008 5:55:01 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; LucyT; Chief Engineer; Beckwith; BP2; Calpernia; Jim Robinson; Gemsbok

You said — “And one more thing: the actual proofing of eligibility is a federal function, not a state function. It may be/it is the job of SoS and election commissions in the various states to vett candidates for federal office. BUT it is a federal function to force proof of eligibility based upon the Federal Constitutional provisions. This is done via the Congressional reception of the electoral votes and SCOTUS verification of the Constitutional requirements.”

I would say that since individual states have control over their Electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States — that means each state has complete control over who makes it on the ballot or off the ballot. I believe it’s a “states rights” issue and it should be *totally* under control of that state and its own citizens — exclusively.

In light of that, the state can have complete control over how they want to vet a candidate for President of the United States (and Vice President) and be able require proof of whether a candidate qualifies under the Constitution and whether they get Electoral College vote[s] from that particular state.

That’s why we need state laws to vet the Presidential Candidate in that they have to *prove* that they meet the Constitutional requirements for office.

And then you said — “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.”

I don’t like Obama and I didn’t vote for him and I didn’t want him in office but it’s obvious that the majority of the voters did and they “outvoted me”...

But, having said that — so far no one has proved any fraud on Obama’s part. If they had proved fraud, he would have already been prosecuted. Have you noticed that there are no prosecutions of fraud for Obama. Perhaps there will be in just another couple of weeks — but they had better *hurry* because once he is President, it will take impeachment by Congress to do that and we know how well Clinton’s went...

And finally, you said — “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.”

Well, I see my name in there... LOL...

The problem that a lot of people have is *with the facts* on the matter of Obama’s eligibility. There is no proof for the non-eligibility of Obama, which is why people are having no progress with it. And there is no proof of fraud, which is why no prosecutor is bringing a case forward.

You can’t convict someone without proof and that’s what you’re trying to do.

The thing to really do is *fix the defective vetting process* and get the states to require proof (by law) of a candidate’s eligibility under the Constitution (or else they can’t be placed on the ballot)....

That’s the only solution that you’re going to have, at the present time.


390 posted on 12/18/2008 5:55:52 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Ahhhh.....nine it is. Thanks again. I enjoy speaking with you.


391 posted on 12/18/2008 6:06:55 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Thanks..., you’re one of the few... :-)


392 posted on 12/18/2008 6:20:08 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
For what it's worth, it only takes four votes for the court to hear a case. The four conservative justices could force a hearing on the issue if all four agreed. Given that there've been no leaks of dissension from the Court, I suspect (without proof) they've all decided they don't need to hear these cases. I'm confident that if Justice Scalia thought there was a Constitutional issue at hand, we'd know about it.
393 posted on 12/18/2008 10:36:21 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
What will happen later when we find out it's true, the Obamination was ineligible to serve ... what are these judges going to say then ?

Nothing, they serve for life. Except on "bad behavior", but the 'Rat Congress wouldn't do that even if a certified copy of the Certificate of Birth shows BHO to have been born in Havana of Fidel and some dark skinned Cuban groupie.

394 posted on 12/18/2008 10:53:10 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LS
Or, there could genuinely be nothing to this stuff

How would SCOTUS know one way or the other? They have ordered no documents, taken no testimony. They have not ruled on the merits. They haven't even examined them.

395 posted on 12/18/2008 10:57:03 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LS
Never can be that there is no substance to a charge.

AFAIK, no court has ruled that way though. They've thrown out cases based on lack of "standing", on "time is not ripe", on "Not the job of whover is being sued" etc, and other essentially procedural grounds. Not one has request it's own certified copy of the Certificate or Certification of Live Birth, which they could do as courts of competent jurisdiction.

396 posted on 12/18/2008 11:04:40 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“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, 2009. However, our Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2009.”

This just posted on obamacrimes.com website.


397 posted on 12/18/2008 11:08:42 PM PST by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“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, 2009. However, our Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2009.”

This just posted on obamacrimes.com website.


398 posted on 12/18/2008 11:08:47 PM PST by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“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, 2009. However, our Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2009.”

This just posted on obamacrimes.com website.


399 posted on 12/18/2008 11:08:53 PM PST by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
If it's discovered that Zero is constitutionally ineligible, are all of this Executive efforts thereby invalidated?

Probably, certainly there will be no end of defendants arguing that.

But since nothing like that or this has every happened before:

No Body FReeking Knows


400 posted on 12/18/2008 11:23:37 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-417 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson