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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument
Associated Press ^ | June 11, 2012

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alankeyes; birthcertificate; certifigate; drake; keyes; markhamrobinson; naturalborncitizen; obama; robinson; scotus; scotus4kenya; scotushatesamerica; scotusvsamerica; scotusvsjohnjay; wileydrake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last
To: RobbyS

” An elector, maybe, but how could he/she show injury?”


Uh, the last 3 years would certainly be injury. And if we can have “friend of the court” briefs we certainly should allow US Citizens to challenge an action by government when it is obvious the elected officials will not act.

Something tells me there are still enough people in congress and on the USSC who’s name may appear in the 500+ FBI files obtained by the BJ in chief and the only way for them to do a CYA is to not act at all.

If we as citizens do not have standing AND we have proof positive that the BC is forged (WE DO) then just what recourse do we have other than taking it like sheep and hoping enough people have escaped the public education brainwashing to through this toilet bug out of the White House?

After reading and learning what the founders when through to give us this government OF THE PEOPLE I refuse to believe and accept that we are powerless. This ruling elite crap must come to an end. Thomas Jefferson told us so.


51 posted on 06/11/2012 12:01:54 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Then you choose not to believe 0’s family and his own biography of 16 years. And your supportive information has been deemed fraudulent, scrubbed or sealed. Good Grief.


52 posted on 06/11/2012 12:03:02 PM PDT by mcshot (God bless the USA! OMG PLEASE vote ABO or OWW and our Country dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

A nation without justice is governed by great robbers and thieves. (Augustine)


53 posted on 06/11/2012 12:04:16 PM PDT by faithhopecharity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

But it is the State that gives us the right to vote. The Constitution only guarantees equitable treatment by the state.


54 posted on 06/11/2012 12:05:20 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
"The Republicans decided to pass on challenging Obama, so the Court is treating this as a political issue settled by the last election. "

Correct.

The republican party has abandoned their sworn oaths to defend the Constitution.

Most here will still vote straight republican ticket without even batting and eye.

55 posted on 06/11/2012 12:06:29 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Supreme Court says Not Our Job To Qualify POTUS.
++++++++++
Right or wrong, I do believe that is the position the Court has taken.


56 posted on 06/11/2012 12:09:08 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (TIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner

“Honestly, I’m beginning to warm up to the idea of secession, especially if this usurper (GOD forbid) gets back in.”


Yes it would seem the only one with “standing” in this country loves it when his Muslim Brotherhood overthrows a country. Maybe the MudSlime in chief would like a little of his own medicine.

It is insane that the USA is like a roach motel in that you can enter but never leave. The ruling elite never relinquish power voluntarily. Ah, but we are delving into the realm of the “War of Northern Aggression” and we lost any right to secession.

Obama is such a toilet bug.


57 posted on 06/11/2012 12:09:56 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton
Of course those Justices have the power to remove Obama from office

No, they don't.

It takes a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate. The Supreme Court's only involvement is to send the Chief Justice to preside over the Senate deliberations while wearing extra fancy robes.

58 posted on 06/11/2012 12:16:33 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Ask yourselves how realistic is it to have common-sense expectations in this case. Anyone have a mental picture of the day AFTER the SCOTUS declared he did NOT meet the birth/citizenship requirements for the office? Who would be left in the ashes?


59 posted on 06/11/2012 12:16:37 PM PDT by arrdon (Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

i know this is off the subject but who is ms. cook in the photo?

http://themaxeychronicles.blogspot.com/2012/05/white-women-in-barry-obamas-life.html#!/2012/05/white-women-in-barry-obamas-life.html


60 posted on 06/11/2012 12:21:45 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zapp Brannigan
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.

One would think that this was would be conveyed by the context. EVERYONE has a responsibility to enforce this law. The primary line of defense SHOULD have been the State Election officials who should NOT have let him on the ballot until they had seen proof of some sort. (Beyond an affidavit from that insane IDIOT Nancy Pelosi.)

61 posted on 06/11/2012 12:22:31 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
I just heard a good one over at Ace of Spades a little bit ago.

"If America was a car, our "Check President" light would be on. "

:)

62 posted on 06/11/2012 12:27:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: chicken head

connections everywhere on stanley ann?http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2009/feb/15/barack-obamas-mother-spent-time-in-vernon-as/


63 posted on 06/11/2012 12:33:10 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
i know this is off the subject but who is ms. cook in the photo?

Meet the First Obama Girlfriend

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2879098/posts
64 posted on 06/11/2012 12:33:57 PM PDT by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth... || FUBO! OMG! ABO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Once the SCOTUS heard the case and found that Obama was born in Kenya, illegally traveled to Pakistan, and is the son of Malcolm X the Congress would have no choice but to impeach and reverse every law Obama has signed, rescind every EO and reverse military action he has taken as president.
65 posted on 06/11/2012 12:36:52 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Thnx. I needed a good laugh.


66 posted on 06/11/2012 12:38:25 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

“But it is the State that gives us the right to vote.”


RobbyS, please my FR friend, I hope you did not mean to phrase that post the way you did.

WE THE PEOPLE give the Federal government a very limited few of our Creator given rights and also give our various state governments a few more of the rights we retained over the Feds.

The power of OUR government comes from us and thanks to public education, that salient point seems lost.

The Constitution dictates who may or may not serve a President and when there is a legitimate dispute as to the validity of this President to hold our...again OUR.. highest office it is imperative that WE THE PEOPLE have standing.

If the ruling elite can twist our Creator given rights to the point where we no longer have “standing” before our highest court then we are no longer the Land of the Free, and I suspect the elite have been planning this for some time.

If on the other hand Robby, you meant exactly what you posted then we should just agree to a friendly disagreement and move on to another thread.


67 posted on 06/11/2012 12:40:24 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
At least Obama doesn't get to play the victim.

Yeah. All he gets to play is the victor.

For single-handedly bringing down The Great Satan, his praises will be sung in mosques for at least a millennium.

Poor Obama, it brings a tear to my eye, it does.

68 posted on 06/11/2012 12:43:57 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1238 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: null and void
I don't know how much of a victor he'll look like if he gets shellacked in Nov. Nobody likes a loser—especially Muslims.
69 posted on 06/11/2012 12:48:38 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Keyes should have standing but the 9th circus court ruled that he because the lawsuit was filed AFTER Obama was sworn, then he was no longer a candidate at that point, and therefore no longer had any potential for legal standing. Yes, I know, it’s a retarded ruling, but the Supreme Court upheld it by failing to accept the case.
Before the primaries we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually his party's candidate.

Before the main election we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually the president elect.

Before the electoral college vote we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been elected until the electoral college said so.

Before the congress accepted the electoral college vote we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been approved until the congress accepted the electoral college vote.

Before was sworn in we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually violated the constitution until he became president.

Now that he is in the White House, they say it's too late, you should have said something sooner!


70 posted on 06/11/2012 12:48:56 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1238 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

We’re pretty much boxed in.

We’ve exhausted the soap box.

We’ve exhausted the ballot box.

We’ve exhausted the jury box.

I tremble at the thought of opening the remaining box.


71 posted on 06/11/2012 12:52:24 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1238 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: chicken head

Already knew about that. She also lived in Oklahoma.


72 posted on 06/11/2012 12:54:06 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

I wouldn’t assume he’ll get shellacked.

The votes will be counted off-shore with no paper audit trail.

I sure wish I was kidding.


73 posted on 06/11/2012 12:56:58 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1238 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Thnx. I needed a good laugh.

We all do. :)

74 posted on 06/11/2012 12:58:05 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I thought vote corruption/wholesale cheating would keep the Walker recall election tied up in recounts for mos. I was glad to be wrong.


75 posted on 06/11/2012 1:00:49 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: null and void
For single-handedly bringing down The Great Satan, his praises will be sung in mosques for at least a millennium.

Not so fast. I am under the impression that Islam is not going to last for a millennium. It may not last past the next 50 years. Eventually it is going to wake the beast that is US, and we are going to execute it.

76 posted on 06/11/2012 1:03:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Excellent post.


77 posted on 06/11/2012 1:03:38 PM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Ever wonder why America isn’t mentioned in The Revelations?


78 posted on 06/11/2012 1:17:14 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1238 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: HoneysuckleTN

thx- was catching up on stanley ann - this is a stange family- read in a article from 08 that stanley wanted to adopt a mixed race child born from a asian woman and a black man stationed in south korea— anything to that or is it garbage?


79 posted on 06/11/2012 1:25:48 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Why do I think Sotomayor & Kagan did not recuse themselves in the decision - despite the fact that a decision might have eliminated their positions? (sarc)
80 posted on 06/11/2012 1:35:14 PM PDT by NJ_Tom (I don't worship the State; I don't worship the Environment - I only worship God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
thx- was catching up on stanley ann - this is a stange family- read in a article from 08 that stanley wanted to adopt a mixed race child born from a asian woman and a black man stationed in south korea— anything to that or is it garbage?

YW. I don't recall reading anything about that. Perhaps others here can answer your question.
81 posted on 06/11/2012 1:45:17 PM PDT by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth... || FUBO! OMG! ABO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Michael Barnes
I'm curious if it has yet been defined just who in the hell actually has standing?

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.

82 posted on 06/11/2012 1:59:08 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Perhaps electors should have been sued instead.


83 posted on 06/11/2012 2:08:21 PM PDT by Crucial (Tolerance at the expense of equal treatment is the path to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Very good post! Also very true!


84 posted on 06/11/2012 2:13:54 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
So, hypothetically, an incorporated car dealer who lost his dealership because an illegal president illegally bailed out the manufacturer of the cars he sold, then illegally had the manufacturers shut down dealerships owned by opposition party members might have standing IF he filed on behalf of his corporation, AND that he had reasonable cause to suspect INDIVIDUAL harm from the illegal presidents actions?

UNLESS he filed as an individual, OR The Court thought he wasn't the only dealership so harmed?

Did I get that right?

85 posted on 06/11/2012 2:24:37 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1238 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama is not a Big Brother [he's a Big Sissy...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“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.


86 posted on 06/11/2012 2:27:08 PM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; Wurlitzer

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.


87 posted on 06/11/2012 2:47:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

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.


88 posted on 06/11/2012 3:34:36 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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.


89 posted on 06/11/2012 3:41:58 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: edge919

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.


90 posted on 06/11/2012 3:53:40 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: null and void
So, hypothetically, an incorporated car dealer who lost his dealership because an illegal president illegally bailed out the manufacturer of the cars he sold, then illegally had the manufacturers shut down dealerships owned by opposition party members might have standing IF he filed on behalf of his corporation, AND that he had reasonable cause to suspect INDIVIDUAL harm from the illegal presidents actions? UNLESS he filed as an individual, OR The Court thought he wasn't the only dealership so harmed? Did I get that right?

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).

91 posted on 06/11/2012 4:20:15 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; DustyMoment
"No court, do document, NOTHING defines who has the standing to bring these types of issues to the Court"

"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.

92 posted on 06/11/2012 5:28:58 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: azishot
Here’s another “you don’t have standing” kick-the-can-down-the-road decision. sigh

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.

93 posted on 06/11/2012 5:34:58 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I disagree and I will tell you why. If that were the case and if Jones V Bush did not set a standard for standing, then there would have been a flood of lawsuits against President G.W. Bush. We have a system to challege the President in matter.
1. Elections
2. Electorial College session.

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?

94 posted on 06/11/2012 5:40:05 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

obumpa


95 posted on 06/11/2012 5:54:37 PM PDT by Dajjal ("I'm not concerned about the very poor." -- severely conservative Mitt 'Etch-A-Sketch' Rmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Most here will still vote straight republican ticket without even batting and eye.

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).

96 posted on 06/11/2012 6:04:19 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
No, they don't.
It takes a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate. The Supreme Court's only involvement is to send the Chief Justice to preside over the Senate deliberations while wearing extra fancy robes.

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.

97 posted on 06/11/2012 6:07:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: null and void
I tremble at the thought of opening the remaining box.

The true terror in opening the remaining box is this:

  1. If one person starts, he is a nut-ball.
  2. If two, a terrorist cell.
  3. If three, a conspiracy.
  4. If four to a hundred, a militia.
  5. If more than a hundred, a mob.
  6. If a State, an insolent treasonous cur.
  7. If two or three States, a civil war.

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.

98 posted on 06/11/2012 6:24:09 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Act like an adult. I did not say that.


99 posted on 06/11/2012 6:29:56 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
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.)

100 posted on 06/11/2012 6:41:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-186 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