Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks for the illumination. I haven't been following this at all, so the background gives me a bit of hope for this case.
That being said, it's begun to appear to a lot of us who wish to see the Usurper thrown from the castle, that the Supreme Court does not want to rule on this, and would prefer to leave it to the political arena, even though the question of his constitutional eligibility is squarely within their jurisdiction to decide.
Do you remember Justice Thomas' statement about Obama's eligibility? He said, "We're evading that", or words to that effect.
bump.
Well, to be fair, the hour has gotten pretty late. Not everyone Freeps until the wee hours.
I checked our Noob's profile, and he/she/it claims that they posted here as "aShepherd" since 1999. Moved to Texas to retire.
Okey dokey. They still post like a juvenile, as far as I'm concerned. They may have only "moved" home to Mom and Dad's basement, for all I know.
Well probably, but the Apuzzo standing argument doesn’t look like it fits the SCOTUS template real well either. Severe diffusion of injury is a real problem.
I am sorry, I shouldn’t be laughing at that picture, tell me how to stop...
the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.Everyone knows he's legal under Scottish law and the commerce clause. It's all spelled out clearly in the constitutional Roe V Wade decision. < /sarcasm >
I bet this is what everybody is coming out of the woodwork about. Rush is finally talking about this. His brother might know something of what is going on. Laura Ingrahm has come out; next should be Mark Levin. Put 2 and 2 together ant what do you get? Think about it. All these stories about some things that are going to be coming out. Rush, a couple of weeks back, stated in his first half hour, that there is something definitely going on. C’mon Freepers, read the tea leaves. God Bless America.
I can visualize Biden becoming President then resigning,leaving Pelosi to serve out the first term of obama!
Remember how the Nixon/Agnew/Ford shuffle played out.
It is sad to see what this idiot and his leftist minions have done to this country. I don’t think that he will resign, I think that he will be forced out. I might be wrong but somethin’ is happening. It is a shame though, that those who should be the watchdogs of this FreeRepublic let this travesty called BHO happen to this great nation. Seeing what is going on in the country, is scary indeed. God Bless America!
I think so too.
My former senator said as much when he wrote me that the “voters vetted Obama.”
He made it sound like something akin to jury nullification: the action of a collecton of citizens supercedes written law.
So when the voters and the electors chose Obama, constitutional requirements became irrelevant.
Sounds like punting to me. This case needs a judicial determination, BAD! But I don’t think we’ll ever get one.
I’m hoping they’ve been biding their time, waiting til its far enough removed from uhbama’s dissing them at the SOTU address so it won’t be too obvious when they take up a Birther case. ;-)
Whirled Nuts Delight?
Two senators and a Gov. were removed from office after being “voter vetted” for not meeting eligibility requirements. Why not a President?
Hmmmm... everyday I learn something new on Freerepublic.
I am curious about your comment that the timing was perfect. Can you explain why the timing is perfect now and not some earlier or later time?
>>A nice thought, but where does the Constitution give SCOTUS the jurisdiction to rule on presidential eligibility?<<
Since when has that stopped the SCOTUS? Remember Marbury, Roe, Kelo, Nestor and a host of other cases where they have made law? Remember how 0bambi humiliated SCOTUS in front of the whole nation?
remaining optimistically cautious and listening
ping...
Same here.
Thanks for the link. I heard about this several weeks ago. Just assumed it was another false alarm. I’m so tired of false information. I hope something comes of this.
Timing while not everything is critical...
As others have pointed out this case is interesting due to the timline of filing etc as well as recent changes in the political winds of our country.
If your a SCOTUS justice, would you have taken even a good eligibility case prior to Nov 2nd?
No one would have your back.....if you want to survive in war and politics you better have a friendly on your six.
Also look at the succession line prior to the 2nd if you were to find the prez ineligible.
Chances are if this were to proceed would not SCOTUS perhaps rule that vetting was up to congress? Who will now have control of congress starting next year?
The recent changes may have brought a window of opportunity.
While I don’t classify myself as a birther, being a life long student of history I’m finding the NBC issue of this president to be fascinating and troubling.
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.