Skip to comments.Supreme Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument
Posted on 06/11/2012 10:42:09 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressherald.com ...
The answer to that question is found by examining the jurisdiction in which the Supreme Court is sitting when they rule. And that jurisdiction is federal administrative. Thus they are limited to ruling on issues of federal administration, which is either internal governmental issues or... corporate issues. Because the federal government issues articles of incorporations, which then exist under federal administrative corporate law.
I'm sorry, did you hear anything in the above that addresses natural human beings? Either does the Supreme Court.
So who has standing? Government officials acting in their administrative capacities, and corporate officers acting in their corporate capacities.
But what about The People?
:: shrug ::
To rule on an issue concerning The People, the Supreme Court would have to choose to sit in their Common Law jurisdictional capacity.
They haven't chosen to do that.
But don't worry. At any time, the COULD choose to do that, and then they'd be shocked - shocked, I tell you - that Obama's NBC status wasn't certified.
Perhaps electors should have been sued instead.
Very good post! Also very true!
UNLESS he filed as an individual, OR The Court thought he wasn't the only dealership so harmed?
Did I get that right?
“Standing” is a concept invented by the courts to help them sort through their backlog. In a way, it’s an unconstitutional concept in the first place.
If any one of the 50 states ruled Obama ineligible due to either his father or concern about his birth certificate, then a federal case would be sparked that the US Supreme Court would accept.
However, as long as all 50 states agree Obama is eligible, there is no conflict to resolve.
In like manner, it would only have taken 1 of 100 senators, and 1 of 435 representatives to force Congress to rule on the meaning of NBC in 2009...but when 100/100 agree, and 435/435 agree, there is nothing to resolve. There simply is no conflict.
When every state and every member of Congress believe the Constitution should be interpreted as XYZ, the Court is not going to step in and insist the meaning is ZYX.
If you look at the Constitution, you note that the right to vote for a member of the House of Representative will be determined by the State. If he can vote for the popular branch of the state legislature he is eligible to vote for a member of the national popular branch. In the beginning that states limited this right but gradually extended the privilege to almost all white male residents. Now of course the right is almost universal. The right to vote in a republic is a kind of office. That is why in many states it was first limited to the pater familias: one family or household, one vote, with the male head casting the ballot for all. Once you get to universal suffrage, of course, then its meaning changes: just an expression of person opinion.
Mass ignorance, political partisanship and accepting an incorrect claim at face value does not = agreement among all the parties you listed. This is just another dumb Fogger argument.
Actually, it is at the heart of the matter. When all 50 states and every member of Congress agree on someone’s eligibility, who is the Supreme Court to say no? Who is edge to substitute his ideas of the meaning of NBC for that of the states, Congress - and yes, the majority of people in the USA?
After 4 years, have your arguments convinced any state, or any member of Congress?
Oh wait...that’s right...it is a giant conspiracy. You really ARE the Emperor Napoleon, and you just can’t figure out why no one bows to you.
He wouldn't have to be the only one harmed, as long as "he" means his car dealership corporation (solely on behalf of which he is acting as an officer of said corporation). Other car dealership corporations could also be similiarly harmed, and file separate suits, and then request that the court hear their suits as a group or class action, but that would be up to the court.
But, yeah, that's about it. And even then, the lower courts could still claim lack of standing so that the standing issue gets booted upwards because they don't want to take the political heat, and then when it gets to the Supremes, they could just not grant cert, and thereby avoid dealing with it altogether.
It's like Vegas - house rules aren't made to enable the house to lose. That's why the big money buys stock in the house, and fills the house with it's own people. To make breaking the law, legal.
What all of these geniuses haven't thought through, however, is what happens if they ever "win," seeing as America is the only place in the world that even remotely exists on behalf of protecting freedom. Virtually all of these government enablers actually believe their loyalty will save them after the collapse they are paid to create. That's because virtually none of them have read any history (they can't, or they won't get hired in the first place).
"The underlying problem is that the Constitution says that you have to meet thus-and-such requirements to be President, but doesn't say who is supposed to determine whether or not a particular person does, in fact, meet those requirements."
Actually, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has the answer to BOTH of these statements.
"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
A few notes.
1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify", something they may have done on purpose in this instance depending upon the reasons why. National security? Who knows at this point.
3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.
4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.
Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.
Obviously no American has standing. This them means that the only person with standing must be non-American, the question is: "why?".
I'm actually of the opinion that the Judiciary sees itself as greater than the Constitution that established them (both state and federal). This seems to be illustrated in these "birther" cases wherein no-one is allowed standing, the IN SC declaring the right to resist unlawful police entry wwas no longer recognized (essentially declaring that neither the USSC's opinions on the 4th Amd had power, nor the Constitution of IN which contains a letter-for-letter copy of the 4th), and the AZ SC which declared that the State's Constitutional definition of "Treason" [Art II, Sec 28] was unconstitutional despite the Judiciary not having the power to alter, amend, or void the Constitution, oh and let's not forget CA and Prop 8.
So what you're saying is "Once he crosses the finish-line nothing can disqualify him."
I wonder, does this mean that no law applies to the President?
Screw that; I'm not voting Republican unless I know the candidate will stand up for the party's stated planks (which, incidently, most don't).
Sure they do, if he was never qualified to be President then how can he, as President, be impeached?
That said, if he is not an NBC his mere presence acting in the office is criminal, and those having the power to throw him out, by not doing so, become co-conspirators.
The true terror in opening the remaining box is this:
They've spun the narrative such that any uprising is evil.
As I see it, the only way to win is play dirty tricks until the MSM-narritive falls apart and it becomes apparent that the Federal Government is itself at war with the several states and/or giving their enemies aid & comfort: treasonous by Constitutional definition.
That may be good, because what we need in such a situation is logistics and training. Something we don't have. If it sparks off now, we're effectively doomed; given a few years of intense preparation (plus the intensification of that prep, as the above becomes more and more obvious) and I think the Militia could wage an effective war against the Federal government.
Act like an adult. I did not say that.
You did not say that; it is however the next step: if the President is immune from some law, then what other laws is he immune from? Also, given that the Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land, and it sets forth the lawful requirements for the President to hold office, then if those requrements cannot be verified, then what remains? (ie in that case all might be unconstitutional acts must be treated as is constitutional, until such time as they are determined [by a court] to be unconstitutional; but since they must be considered constitutional there is no reason to raise the doubt, and therefore all questionable cases are without merit. That, is standing [WRT Constitutionality], in a nutshell.)