Skip to comments.Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again (It won't go away)
Posted on 12/19/2010 2:31:41 AM PST by RobinMasters
It just doesn't appear to be going away.
The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.
According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.
This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Do the Supreme Court do split judgements? If the minority were to record that two Judges should have recused themselves because of conflict of interest, and that Obama is not an NBC, that would be sufficient to get the matter decided properly.
They are probably afraid to do it because it might break the judicial process, but the judicial process is corrupted and broken by political appointees already. Better to lose a leg than the whole body to cure the creeping gang-green.
You are aware that your link is to a Certificate of Live Birth and not a long form Birth Certificate, right?
“To retroactively diqualify the Obama administration at this point in time might cause the U.S. government to collapse.”
It’s well past time for the Government to experience significant change. We must get the government (and the elitists in it) back within the constraints of the Constitution. Limited government was always the plan; part-time legislators always the model.
The fact that we have, today, the leviathan in DC is due to the American sheeple being asleep at the wheel for far too long; and, the slide to socialism started by FDR with the New Deal crappola that spawned the latest farce, 0bama’s Raw Deal. Now we are several generations into an ‘entitlement’ mindset, and the cure will be tough going.
But, we must fix this Nation.
Don’t be too sure about that notion of voiding anything he signed... Keep in mind that legislation also involves the Congress. As a mere signatory to the adopted legislation, it may be that the only thing actually voided will be Executive Orders this charlatan has issued.
Either way, it’s an argument I await, anxiously.
You just brought me up to date on the 2010 elections, thanks.
The libs enjoyed a lot more success with SoS’s in ‘06 and ‘08 but those were Dem years, so Soros’ money might not have had as much impact as some think.
“This issue will go away in 2012 when Obama is defeated. Not before.”
We cannot allow this to simply ‘go away’. I am confident that the global government crowd are quite closely watching the progress of this whole eligibility issue. I am of the mind that their plans and schemes will be shaped by the US PEOPLE’S path and process in chasing the truth in this matter.
They are EXPECTING us to simply drop it...and, we MUST NOT.
It will when he does.
Images of both "long" and "short" Hawaiian certificates...
“The entire citizenry of the country is involved - we all have legal standing!
And, THAT is precisely why none of us have standing, in the slightly twisted logic of the American legal system. Since, in fact, ALL of us are impacted, NONE of us has standing to challenge.
The fine legal minds here on FR can better explain it, but it seems that ‘standing’ has a component of individual, limited particularity that no one has yet been able to prove to the courts that have hosted these suits.
That is pretty twisted, you know. Proof is no good if it isn’t openly presented.
I know, and I do not like it either. But by pleading guilty, Lt. Col. Lakin showed that he agreed with the government's assertion that 0bama is eligible to serve as president and that he was wrong to question that assertion. Even if he wanted to appeal this guilty plea, it is going to be next to impossible to do so.
Had he gone to trial instead, the government would be obligated to show its evidence, and even if the government somehow got out of that obligation, that action too could be appealed.
The way I see it, Lt. Col. Lakin chose to pretty much end his military career by challenging his orders on eligibility grounds. If he was so willing to make himself the test case, then why not at least go all the way and force the government to show its cards?
Copping a plea is only what you do when you know the government can nail your rear end to the wall in court, you want a lenient sentence, and the prosecutor wants an unappealable conviction.
I haven't heard so. If they have, GREAT! ALL states should have such a written requirement. IMO, they already HAVE the requirement as part of their duties to assure legal elections and legal candidates, and have failed in that duty. That NONE had done so is a significant flaw in our electoral process.
Zer0 bamboozled millions... gave us the old 'okee doke.'
It will surface after he is dead
I have a question. Are those executive orders blocking the viewing of his college transcripts, COLB etc, void at the end of his presidency? Anybody know for sure?
Can you imagine the State-Run media if this was G.W. or any “R” whose eligibility to be POS was in question? We would be seeing reports even today (2-years later) on the PM News and 60 minutes on why needs to be done to affirm Bush’s or any “R”’s eligibility to sit in the Oval Office.
The first bogus part of that BC is the fathers race is “African”. “African” is not a race,it’s a continent, and secondly the term used in the 60’s was “Negro” not “African”.
I wonder would not Sotomyer and Kagan have to recuse themselves; having been appointed by Obama?