Posted on 10/27/2008 7:07:51 PM PDT by JoeA
Welcome to Barack Obama's America, a land where mere citizens dare not challenge the legitimacy of The One. A country where behind the mask of democracy lays massive voter fraud and intimidation of opponents. A nation where campaign finance laws are yet another minor obstacle to be overcome in the process of stealing an election.
In an election season marked with massive voter fraud, and in which the least qualified Democratic candidate has spirited the nomination away from a rival who soundly beat him in nearly every major primary, a federal court has ruled that the common man has no right to question Obama's constitutional qualifications . . . (excerpt) read the rest here.
(Excerpt) Read more at hubpages.com ...
Obama didn’t invent the legal requirement that plaintiffs must have standing to sue in the federal courts. It’s rooted in the “case or controversy” provision in the US Constitution.
Read it sometime.
We will no longer be citizens, who have rights, but rather subjects of the state who will serve the “dear leaders”.
America as we know it may fade into the past as a footnote in time.
I can’t figure out how in a country where you need a certified birth certificate to sign up for little-league; you can run for president without a process to actually certify eligibility. That is why I don’t know what to make of this whole thing. It seems just too far fetched. As for the ruling; if a citizen doesa not have standing to bring this suit, who might?
This was sent to Rep Judy Biggert (R-IL-13) today:
Dear Rep Biggert:
There has been a troubling lawsuit, now dismissed, in Pennsylvania that attempted to clarify the citizenship and eligibility for the Democrat candidate who is running for President.
The courts have thusfar ruled that the US citizen who brought the case does not "have standing" in the court. The question needs to be asked 'Who has standing to challenge the eligibility of a Presidential candidate?
From what I can tell, the determination of eligibility happens at the Elector College step. In this current campaign, if the Democrat challenger wins, there will be a constitutional crisis the likes we have never seen.
In response to the lawsuit, the DNC was joined. A spokesman from the DNC to the court admitted, on the record, that if the true birth and citizenship information was made public, it would be "embarrassing to the candidate".
Maybe the data is embarrassing, but that should be far secondary to finding out if the candidate is truly eligible to serve.
Please promise that if the Democrat candidate is elected, the eligibility challenge will get a fair hearing at the Electoral College step. I believe Sen. McCain can win, but if the opponent wins, this country is in real trouble of we have a leader who is ineligible.
Many Democrats still hold a grudge saying that President Bush is STILL ineligible based on the 2000 vote. The "native born" issue is far more problematic.
Good luck in the election - you have my support.
Again, please promise to challenge eligibility at the Electoral College step if we get that far.
Best regards,
S.....
Enlighten me if you can. It sounds like a fine legal point, and I’m not an attorney. However, if I am not injured by the election of a President who is not an American (or natural born), then who is?
I feel this may go to the electoral college, that an elector might have to file the suit.
is this real someone have a link to this?
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.