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

Skip to comments.

Obama eligibility - naive law student gets an 'F' as attorney rips her a new one
renewanmerica.com ^ | 12/24/09 | Philip J. Berg

Posted on 12/26/2009 6:59:53 AM PST by westcoastwillieg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-297 next last
To: Seizethecarp

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


221 posted on 12/27/2009 3:00:28 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”


222 posted on 12/27/2009 6:03:25 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: GI Joe Fan

Toy soldier. I asked a simple question. Where does one get documentation or some proof that the Obama lawyers have spent $1.5 million on defense against proof of citizenship claims. If you cite the figure, where does it come from. Apparently, you don’t have a clue as judged from your nasty response.


223 posted on 12/27/2009 6:54:14 AM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

Huh? I did read the article. Yes, she wrote one that indicated she was a conservative Republican and she wrote the one we are discussing. I agree with the professor who was critiquing the second. So, no I’m not embarrassed.


224 posted on 12/27/2009 7:17:41 AM PST by pepperdog (As Israel goes, so goes America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

Yeah, a lot of us can get into some pretty quick knee jerky responses hereon.

Some like to think of things as simple and clear-cut when they aren’t always that way.

I was all set to rant at her about the Christian Republicans article. Yet, she was sensible and pretty conservative, I think.

I think she missed it by a lot of country miles on the birther thing, however.

I’ve missed a lot of things, too.


225 posted on 12/27/2009 7:33:36 AM PST by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: danamco
We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.

That is the heart of the matter...the Court can not invent standing where none exists.

226 posted on 12/27/2009 7:40:21 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
Phil at the RSOL has several post on the amount Zero has spent hiding everything from the people that voted for him. His source is the FEC and is linked from his post. And as GI Joe Fan has pointed out spending one dollar to hide what should be public is dishonorable. The reason we are here is that our founding fathers were honorable men and they wrote the Constitution for honorable men. No one foresaw that someday a dishonorable man would see that there was no mechanism to force a person to prove his/her eligibility. The truth will come out and history will forever show just how hisoric this presidency really is.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/08/10/eligibility-update-other-candidates-vetted-birth-announcement-law-tab-to-1-4-million/

227 posted on 12/27/2009 8:05:55 AM PST by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Does Mario Apuzzo address the bigamy provision in the 1902 Kenya Marriage Act which specifically includes tribal marriage?

Does he address the explicit exclusion of illegitimate children from receiving UK citizenship under the BNA of 1948?

228 posted on 12/27/2009 8:06:30 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202


229 posted on 12/27/2009 8:28:21 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

“Thanks Seizethecarp, but Obama Sr. had other wives, never divorced any and never served time in jail.”

To my knowledge, Obama Sr. had only one marriage and one legal wife in Kenya and that was to Kezia. The other two marriages were in the US and appear to me to be serial bigamous marriages under both US and Kenya (UK colonial) law.

See UK Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431908/A-drunk-bigot—US-Presidental-hopeful-HASNT-said-father-.html

and:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506338/Barack-Obamas-stepmother-living-Bracknell-reveals-close-bond-—mother.html


230 posted on 12/27/2009 8:52:57 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
The reason we are here is that our founding fathers were honorable men and they wrote the Constitution for honorable men. No one foresaw that someday a dishonorable man would see that there was no mechanism to force a person to prove his/her eligibility.

You underestimate the founding fathers.

231 posted on 12/27/2009 8:55:59 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
“Whether the presumed Hawaiian marriage happened remains irrelevant. What matters by our Constitution is who the parents were. Obama has told us, many times, Obama Sr. is his father. These days a DNA test might be used if that claim is contested, But who would contest it? By the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barry was born a subject of the British Empire.”

We do not yet know “what matters by our constitution” as SCOTUS has not yet ruled on an on-point case other to say that “there is doubt” as to whether persons who do not have two citizen parents and born on US are NBC.

The 1948 BNA explicitly excludes Barry from being a UK subject if he was the illegitimate child of a bigamous marriage.

See 1948 BNA:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

232 posted on 12/27/2009 8:58:24 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
“The law firm which defended McCain in his trial, settled out of court, challenging McCain's failure to satisfy Article II, also had a senior partner on Obama’s compaign board - Kendall and Ellis. They are experts on Article II. They paid a had a young associate to write a journal article attacking the natural born citizenship requirement: Sarah Herilhy,Chicaco-Kent Law Review, 2005. That suggests that the groundwork for the British subject was being laid as early as 2005.”

It is not clear to me whether Sarah Herlihy's involvement was to legally protect Obama from ineligibility due to being a potential dual citizen or foreign birth or both. I don't believe there was any such trial of McCain or out-of-court settlement (link welcome, of course).

Yes, there was a non-binding resolution in the Senate supposedly affirming that McCain was NBC. But the Senate has no power to redefine the language of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS has that power, which is why the resolution was non-binding.

McCain's admitted problem had to do with being born outside the territorial USA and is totally different from Obama’s admitted problem of being the son of a UK subject. McCain does not admit to a dual citizen problem that he might have it he were born on off-base Panamanian soil as some claim. Obama does not admit to a non-US birth problem.

My suspicion is that Obama’s expensively hidden HI vital record opens a path to discovery of a non-US birth along with amendments that claim an HI birth. HI officials are bound to honor the amended conclusion of an HI birth but are legally unable to disclose the amendments or source of the original birth report and the claimed location of the birth.

233 posted on 12/27/2009 9:18:56 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Quix
fixed. indeed...lol/
234 posted on 12/27/2009 9:33:56 AM PST by cricket ('Don't bow for me Obama ' (America's 'sorry' President)http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
And I asked you a simple question.

Why spend so much as 100 dollars hiding behind a lawyer when you can spend 10-20 dollars at a Hawaii records office?

The point is, he is hiding behind an army of lawyers for a reasons relating to his deceptive intentions.

The precise dollar value is insignificant IF you bother to examine why he would hide like this.

PS... You never answered my question about President Reagan.

235 posted on 12/27/2009 10:10:05 AM PST by GI Joe Fan (GI Joe represents Real American Heroes, not a bunch of globalist drones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Whose not who’s.

“Who’s” is a contraction for “who is.”


236 posted on 12/27/2009 10:57:57 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Yes, I’m aware of the illegitimacy issue under the BNA of 1948. I posted a link to it above.

I have always maintained that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he doesn’t have two U.S. citizen parents. However, I now find it difficult to point to the BNA of 1948 as governing the status of his birth when it also stipulates that he is illegitimate and not automatically a U.K. subject.

I’m researching the issue further. This little fact is troublesome to the whole argument that he is not a natural born citizen.


237 posted on 12/27/2009 11:06:45 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: GregNH; All

Eligibility Update: Other Candidates Vetted; Birth Announcement; Law Tab to $1.4 Million

EXCERPT:

“In the last 18 years, highly personal information has been published about presidential candidates, including divorce and alimony details, drunk driving arrest records, college grades, urinalysis results, prostate cancersurgery – even details about George W. Bush’s hemorrhoid troubles.

The media have dredged up medical, military, college and detailed records for Republican and Democratic Party candidates in at least the last five elections. Candidates were subject to intense scrutiny of their health conditions, academic performance and military careers. …

As WND has reported, Obama has not released his long-form birth certificate, college transcripts, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records or his adoption records. …

Nearly every candidate since the 1992 election has released detailed medical records. However, Barack Obama, a relatively young candidate who was said to have been in “excellent health,” refused to release his own. Instead, he simply provided a six-paragraph note from his physician briefly summarizing 21 years of doctor visits and health information.

Whille not comprehensive, the following is a list of publicly available documents and personal information the media published on Republican and Democrat candidates Sen. John McCain, George W. Bush, Sen. John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush...”

HIT LINK BELOW TO READ MORE:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/08/10/eligibility-update-other-candidates-vetted-birth-announcement-law-tab-to-1-4-million/

Frankly, I don’t personally know how much TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY Obama has spent to prevent discovery of his birth certificate... but when I sent away for mine, it cost me around $12.00.

STE=Q


238 posted on 12/27/2009 11:25:19 AM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sorry, English is my third (3rd.) language, do you want to join me in conversation with my two other languages???


239 posted on 12/27/2009 11:44:27 AM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

How about looking at it this way.

Accept your assumption that 1.5 million is too much, representing the extreme upper limit.

But coming from the other side, we can be certain the amount Obama has spent defending against the birthers is greater than zero.

What then can we speculate would be the extreme lower limit?
Say $100,000. Many would scoff and say it’s way too low. Anyway, a rough estimate can be gauged through the means described in these discussions.

Now take the lower limit and the upper limit and establish a reasonable middle value.

The answer here, and we’re being extremely conservative, would be an amount approaching one million dollars and steadily increasing.


240 posted on 12/27/2009 11:50:49 AM PST by reasonisfaith (When liberal ideology is put into practice it accomplishes, universally, the opposite of its claims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-297 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