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

Skip to comments.

Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again (It won't go away)
WND ^ | DECEMBER 19, 2010 | Bob Unruh

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: certifigate; illegal; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; scotus; taitz; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2010 2:31:44 AM PST by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Anything which undos the evil this Marxist bastard is doing to America is to be welcomed.


2 posted on 12/19/2010 2:37:25 AM PST by ZULU (No nation which tried to tolerate Islam escaped Islamization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I am more convinced every day that the only way to handle this thing is at the state level. If even one or two conservative state legislatures can vote to require that candidates provide documentary proof of natural born citizenship, 0 might be gone after one term for that reason alone.


3 posted on 12/19/2010 2:40:11 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Ditto to what you say but did you also see what the eight RINO’s did in the senate with DADT?


4 posted on 12/19/2010 2:40:11 AM PST by rambo316 (Rush is Right, Odumbo is an Imposter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Scanian

re: only way to handle this thing is at the state level

I think you are correct. What if a state could find something to decline to do claiming he’s not eligible to be in the office. Find some bill he’s signed that requires them to do something specific, and then simply notify the powers that be that they will not be doing it.

I quite agree that having one or two states require proof of eligibility would do it, but maybe there’s a quicker way to handle it.


6 posted on 12/19/2010 2:48:58 AM PST by jwparkerjr (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I woder if the Supreme Court justices fear the media enough to give Obama a free pass?,the smut slinger media saves it’s best ammo for last.


7 posted on 12/19/2010 2:56:53 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: jwparkerjr

I think a lot of states will be refusing mandates...if one could attach the eligibility question to their objections, that might help.

I do think that legislating documentary reqirements would be the quickest for getting rid of him. I can’t see the courts doing anything about him before 11/12, if ever-—”a political question” will be their main excuse. And the federal courts are gun shy about politics after Bush/Gore even though SCOTUS was absolutely right about it.


9 posted on 12/19/2010 2:58:52 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Obama’s appointees to the SC have probably been very carefully chosen.


10 posted on 12/19/2010 2:59:48 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
You're never going to see a birth certificate anytime soon. Period.

Either the certificate is being withheld because: 1) he wasn't born in Hawaii, 2) there is other embarrassing information on it, 3) the issue is being cynically, and with great effort, kept alive as a "tar baby" to distract us, or 4) any combination of the proceeding three points.

You best hope is that fifty years from now someone will write a book...

11 posted on 12/19/2010 3:02:36 AM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This matter was wrongly and finally decided in January 2009.

To retroactively diqualify the Obama administration at this point in time might cause the U.S. government to collapse.

Regardless of the fact that Obama is obviously not constitutionally qualified to serve as POTUS, SCOTUS will never acknowlege that reality.


12 posted on 12/19/2010 3:02:59 AM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Once he is REMOVED (that really sounds so good) will every appointment he made be null & void?


13 posted on 12/19/2010 3:03:46 AM PST by DeaconRed (I wish I didn't know now, what I did know then - 2 Years ago. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voter#537

“will every appointment he made be null & void?”

Yes, and also every law and treaty he signed.


14 posted on 12/19/2010 3:08:40 AM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

If he is legal, it would take mere seconds to prove it.


15 posted on 12/19/2010 3:10:22 AM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I have to agree, however the prospect of Joe Biden is not a good one either.
I suspect the Supremes are shy of this one, and that they would prefer to drag the issue out until after Bam Bam and the wookie are out of the WH.


16 posted on 12/19/2010 3:12:56 AM PST by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

mrkd


17 posted on 12/19/2010 3:13:11 AM PST by KarenMarie (NEVER believe anything coming out of DC until it's been denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I love that idea, but the problem would be that the states that would pass this would be red states that Obama can’t win anyway. Now if we could get Florida, Ohio, North Carolina then that would be a way to work this. But if it is Texas, Utah, Montana, Idaho we might not make as great an impression.


18 posted on 12/19/2010 3:14:43 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: devere

“To retroactively disqualify the Obama administration at this point in time might cause the U.S. government to collapse.”

I’ve been saying this for awhile now. I think the powers that be have known this since the beginning. If it were revealed that he is not eligible then everything he has done for the last 2 years would have to be reversed.


19 posted on 12/19/2010 3:19:03 AM PST by vanilla swirl (We are the Patrick Henry we have been waiting for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

SCOTUS is afraid to take a chance on the truth!


20 posted on 12/19/2010 3:24:54 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

The thought is that it would make him quit after a first term if it looked like a trend was developing.


21 posted on 12/19/2010 3:27:40 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr
I quite agree that having one or two states require proof of eligibility would do it, but maybe there’s a quicker way to handle it.

Maybe a state could challenge Obama's authority to sign legislation (affecting that state) into law.

22 posted on 12/19/2010 3:28:02 AM PST by Rapscallion (Will history judge that Obama and Soros destroyed our America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I love that idea, but the problem would be that the states that would pass this would be red states that Obama can’t win anyway.

That is not the point. The point is that if even one single state puts up such a requirement, and Obama does not or cannot fulfill it before the election, then we go into a presidential election where Obama isn't on the ballot in an entire state because he couldn't prove his eligibility. Think of how that would look to the other 49 states. Who, besides the most ideologically anti-American, would vote for a guy who couldn't even show he was eligible to run?
23 posted on 12/19/2010 3:37:25 AM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

That would be great. You know I don’t think he is going to run anyway regardless of this. I think that is why he is in such a rush to pass all these bills. You have to remember that he gets 400K whether he does 4 years or 8 years and he is not one to work (golf anyone). So I sincerely believe this was his plan all along. Ruin the country as much as possible and bail.


24 posted on 12/19/2010 3:38:53 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This issue will go away in 2012 when Obama is defeated. Not before.


25 posted on 12/19/2010 3:43:17 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

While I would love for 0bama to somehow be declared ineligible to serve as President, the fact is, whether we like or not, that the government has sufficient proof that he is. If no such proof existed, then there would have been no guilty plea in the recent court martial of the guy in the Army who was challenging 0bama’s eligibility.


26 posted on 12/19/2010 3:46:25 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere
"To retroactively diqualify the Obama administration at this point in time might cause the U.S. government to collapse."

Nope. As much of a dumbass as he is, Biden was legitimately elected VP. Succession in office is assured. Not a problem.

But I agree with you that the SCOTUS won't touch it.

Other posters on-thread have identified the correct approach, institute state requirements for proof. I am absolutely amazed that some conservative state has not yet done so (OK or SC, for instance).

27 posted on 12/19/2010 3:50:07 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Since the ‘08 conventions I’ve suspected a deal of some kind between the Obamanistas and the Clintons. He would “rule” the country for 4 years (assuming a win) and then get out of the way for Hillary. And then she would come on the scene as a “moderate” voice after the radical Obama but if elected simply keep his programs in place and strengthen them as much as possible.

Obama= idealogue

Bill Clinton= politician

Hillary= combination of the 2


28 posted on 12/19/2010 3:51:47 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
"But if it is Texas, Utah, Montana, Idaho we might not make as great an impression."

It only takes ONE state. The media could not ignore a failure to provide REQUIRED information on the part of ANY prospective candidate.

29 posted on 12/19/2010 3:52:03 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

It should be that these legal challenges multiply until they are as flies on his stink only then will the supremes be motivated to get off their bench butts and act to honor their Oath and defend the bloody freaking US Constitution They all swear to defend


30 posted on 12/19/2010 3:54:12 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Other posters on-thread have identified the correct approach, institute state requirements for proof. I am absolutely amazed that some conservative state has not yet done so (OK or SC, for instance).

I thought Iowa did this recently.

31 posted on 12/19/2010 3:57:42 AM PST by ExSoldier (Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil: It has no point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Dog #1
2) there is other embarrassing information on it

Like perhaps that his father was a British subject?

32 posted on 12/19/2010 4:12:01 AM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Eventually Obama will have to release his real long form BC....the Obama Supporters who fight the Birthers can only rely on ad hominem attacks and slander for so long.

It is sad that so many in talk radio, Fox News, GOP...are supporting Obama on this issue. The release of his long form BC really is not hard to do


33 posted on 12/19/2010 4:14:10 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Whenever something is "Global"...it means its bad for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I am more convinced every day that the only way to handle this thing is at the state level. If even one or two conservative state legislatures can vote to require that candidates provide documentary proof of natural born citizenship, 0 might be gone after one term for that reason alone.


Probably will be the only way.

Though, it can take as little as a state Sec. of State or election comission head to ask for proof of eligibility....birth cert....etc. The states have a lot of authority in how elections are handled....and Obama supporters would have a harder time in court


34 posted on 12/19/2010 4:16:56 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Whenever something is "Global"...it means its bad for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

The issue in this latest case before the Supreme Court is Orly’s $20,000 fine, not the actual eligibility issue. Because the lower court judges have discretion in reprimanding lawyers’ conduct before them, it is highly improbable that the Supremes will take this case.

If Obama were somehow removed from office, all of the laws, acts, orders, etc signed by him would remain as law under the de facto officer doctrine.

The only means of getting rid of Obama are through impeachment in Congress or the ballot box in 2012.


35 posted on 12/19/2010 4:18:32 AM PST by Padams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

I don’t know how the last election affected things, but the lefties have been remarkably successful in electing SoS’s in recent years, with Soros’ money.


36 posted on 12/19/2010 4:19:29 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

The parent’s citizenship isn’t on the certificate, but a lot of other stuff is...http://truebluenz.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg


37 posted on 12/19/2010 4:22:51 AM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Probably?

This was THE main point about not electing zero ... or ANY democrat ... in 2008.

We KNEW the Supers would get two and maybe three new members back then.

38 posted on 12/19/2010 4:23:36 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
I can't imagine any case which could come before the Supreme Court which has more importance than a case to determine the eligibility of the person occupying the Presidency when it is in question.

The entire citizenry of the country is involved - we all have legal standing!

39 posted on 12/19/2010 4:24:14 AM PST by eCSMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
THAT one is the most obvious and yet ....

Sometimes I just want to give up

40 posted on 12/19/2010 4:29:31 AM PST by knarf (Who's Holi ? - Christ I know, you obviously don't - let me tell you about him - Romans 10:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

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.


41 posted on 12/19/2010 4:30:43 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Dog #1
The parent’s citizenship isn’t on the certificate, but a lot of other stuff is...

You are aware that your link is to a Certificate of Live Birth and not a long form Birth Certificate, right?

42 posted on 12/19/2010 4:31:11 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: devere

“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.


43 posted on 12/19/2010 4:34:01 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Scanian; UCFRoadWarrior
I don’t know how the last election affected things, but the lefties have been remarkably successful in electing SoS’s in recent years, with Soros’ money.

Look for stories on what actually happened rather than on what was hoped to happen. His project has been a miserable failure.
44 posted on 12/19/2010 4:36:20 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: devere

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.


45 posted on 12/19/2010 4:38:01 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

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.


46 posted on 12/19/2010 4:41:36 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: saganite

“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.


47 posted on 12/19/2010 4:42:49 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
(It won't go away)

It will when he does.

48 posted on 12/19/2010 4:47:56 AM PST by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Regardless of the document's title, this an example of a “long form” certificate from the era Obama was born.

Images of both "long" and "short" Hawaiian certificates...

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1R2GGLL_enDE389&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=hawaiian+certificate+of+live+birth&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

49 posted on 12/19/2010 4:50:17 AM PST by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

“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.


50 posted on 12/19/2010 4:52:05 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 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