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

Skip to comments.

Obama eligibility case lives! Supreme Court's own precedent cited in new demand for resolution
WND ^ | Aug 17, 2014 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 08/18/2014 6:00:08 AM PDT by Ray76

The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement is once again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to hear a number of previous cases.

Judges have ruled Obama’s eligibility is a political question that is not for the courts to decide. They have argued the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court.

Now, however, a plaintiff has surfaced who claims he has suffered a specific and individual injury – the $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; obama; rudy; trademark; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

1 posted on 08/18/2014 6:00:08 AM PDT by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ray76

It’d be nice if it does go somewhere, but I’m thinking it won’t go anywhere. If it did, it would negate everything he inked.


2 posted on 08/18/2014 6:07:05 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Cautiously optimistic for a resolution, but my guess is that by the time they’re done, every anchor baby and illegal alien, along with the entire African continent, will all be Natural Born American citizens and signed up for obamacare.


3 posted on 08/18/2014 6:08:57 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
If it did, it would negate everything he inked.

To quote Dirty Harry, "Make my day!"

4 posted on 08/18/2014 6:09:25 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ray76; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; AZ .44 MAG; ...
Constitutional Eligibility

Sorry son, $90 is small claims territory, you have no standing in this court...

5 posted on 08/18/2014 6:15:51 AM PDT by null and void (If Bill Clinton was the first black president, why isn't Barack Obama the first woman president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA

lol I thought I was the only one who uses “cautiously optimistic”. I also use “falsely optimistic”.


6 posted on 08/18/2014 6:21:08 AM PDT by Rannug ("all enemies, foreign and domestic")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rannug
Now that you mention it, "falsely optimistic" does go better with American politics these days than "cautiously optimistic" does.

I guess I'm showing my age and need to step into this new century.

"Cautiously optimistic" about American politics is so 1980s.

7 posted on 08/18/2014 6:37:40 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

Definitely!


8 posted on 08/18/2014 6:47:18 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: null and void; Ray76; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; ...
Justice Antonin Scalia argued that when questions “involving the Constitution’s government-structuring provisions are presented in a justiciable case, it is the solemn responsibility of the judicial branch ‘to say what the law is.’”

"SAY WHAT THE LAW IS That is all I and my FRiends have been asking for the past 7 years in regard to Constitutional Eligibility.

I have no idea what the SCOTUS' answer might be is they deign to accept this appeal. Frankly, I don't even care. For this institution to have failed in its basic duty to the Republic and the COTUS is far worse than anything the gay disbarred Kenyan/Indonesian/Subject/Citizen could possibly have done.

Answer me this. What is an American Citizen? Howe can the offspring of aliens automatically receive citizenship? What is a Natural Born Citizen? Unless you are presently cashing a SCOTUS paycheck, do not even attempt an answer.

OBTW, totally wack-o brief. But the best of luck!

9 posted on 08/18/2014 7:41:32 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Only a specific Program, Plan, and Leadership will end the chaos of dysfunctional government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Isn’t $90 a rather small injury for a full-blown court case?


10 posted on 08/18/2014 7:44:25 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

So a particularized injury is no longer enough, the particularized injury must be severe? Talk about moving the goal posts. I’ve come to expect that kind of crap from these attorneys in robes.


11 posted on 08/18/2014 8:49:37 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
It’d be nice if it does go somewhere, but I’m thinking it won’t go anywhere. If it did, it would negate everything he inked.

No it wouldn't. There is a legal doctrine called "Defacto Officer." Which means everything he did stays put.

12 posted on 08/18/2014 9:06:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
defacto officer does not apply in this case, Obama’s eligibility has been repeatedly challenged since before he took office...
13 posted on 08/18/2014 9:08:36 AM PDT by rolling_stone (1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

That’s not the issue. The questions would be a) would a court even hear it? It’s small potatoes for even a small claims court, and b) could the worst verdict possible be enough of a threat to even bring out a response, rather than a simple default?

(I’m no attorney.)


14 posted on 08/18/2014 9:13:51 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
defacto officer does not apply in this case, Obama’s eligibility has been repeatedly challenged since before he took office...

I would like to believe you are right, but it is my experience you can't go too far wrong by always assuming that the worst possible outcome is the one which will happen.

15 posted on 08/18/2014 9:14:19 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; Ray76

Sure looks like it would apply according to the link Ray76 provided:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-officer/


16 posted on 08/18/2014 9:15:31 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

as a wise attorney once told me.. a little knowledge of the law can be a dangerous thing...if the defacto officer doctrine would apply, then the current case is moot...I did not see that being indicated in the case, did you?


17 posted on 08/18/2014 9:44:38 AM PDT by rolling_stone (1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

And I don’t see that any court has recognized the validity of the claim, do you?

If they’re going to argue that all legislation signed into law by Obama is unenforceable, then I’d think they’d be able to find an injury greater than $90. Heck, Obamacare has cost me many times that already.


18 posted on 08/18/2014 9:53:07 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

I presented my opinion, based on my research, you of course are free to disagree, I suggest you dig deeper into defacto officer doctrine


19 posted on 08/18/2014 9:55:44 AM PDT by rolling_stone (1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

I simply pointed out that you didn’t seem to present anything that countered the OP’s source. I’m sure we’d all like to be enlightened by you.


20 posted on 08/18/2014 9:57:17 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 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