Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
We agree that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and then we part company. The Constitution sets forth the requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen,
***And that’s all that’s necessary.
but doesn’t define, in detail, what that means nor a process or form of proof for assuring compliance.
***The constitution doesn’t do that with very many issues at all. F’rinstance, it says we have the right to keep & bear arms, basically one or 2 sentences. It’s the framework upon which there are tons of laws built. For you to require that there be laws in place where there already is framework that’s adequate (like the 3rd amendment) is thoroughly disingenuous. Basically, it’s another indication that you’re a CoLB troll.
Without that, compliance could mean taking the word of the politician that he meets the requirement.
***Bull Shiite. Otherwise, why even have the 20th amendment?
To define and spell out in law what compliance means does not put “procedures in priority over the constitution”,
***Yes it does.
it merely sets forth how the Constitutional requirement must be met.
***And, like the 3rd amendment, sometimes the only thing we have is the bare bones constitutional requirement. Just because there aren’t laws & procedures in place for telling an army general to buzz off doesn’t mean that the constitution doesn’t prevail.
Obama did release his CoLB that states he was born in Hawaii.
***Oh, geez. Amazing. Dog returning to vomit type of troll stuff. Obama released a forged electronic document. That means anything else he does along these lines will be held to close scrutiny. Because he’s a freepin’ liar, that’s why. Producing a forgery towards a requirement is basically de facto proof that one doesn’t qualify.
You claim that’s not good enough to prove Constitutional compliance to your satisfaction. The logical fallacy is yours.
***What? What is the claim? When did I mention my own satisfaction? And what is the classical fallacy being used, supposedly? It appears likely that you don’t even know what logical fallacies ARE.
by getting so many to vote for him the law should be set aside in favor of his illicit acts being deemed licit by mob rule.
***I see that, but what I don’t see is why Free Republic, JimRob, the mods, et al haven’t ripped up these poseurs to shreds? WTF happened? They’re OBVIOUS freeping trolls, and they’re allowed, perhaps even encouraged, to frolic. It just doesn’t make any freeping sense.
Yes, I read that very few water landings are successful. That pilot was a hero in more ways than one.
Glad you are back, frozen though you are....Lol..."
We just moved back to Central Florida --- I didn't know it was gonna be so damned cold!
It's not snowing, so it ain't bad ... smootches ................... FRegards
The goal is to win at the ballot box and not take it to court where you cannot win.
***Then leave those of us who are still in the fight alone. You had your goal and lost, we’re working this angle.
Prohibition: the act of prohibiting by authority
Prohibition... qualification. Both very simple constitutional requirements. That is, until a democrat pushes against one of those, then all kinds of people go wobbly, including freepers.
And without thoroughly going through the relevant documents from the Department of Health no one knows for certain where Obama was actually born.
Is twelve dollars too high a price to pay in order to fully verify that a Presidential candidate actually does meet the Constitutional requirements required for the Presidency...?
For Obama it is.
Why...?
That of course appears to be the main plank in Leo's case. I have dabbled a little around the American census of 1880. I did find Chester A Arthur, then a lawyer. He is 49 years of age and is stated as born in VT (Vermont). His father, born Ireland and mother born VT. Arthur stated his father was given American citizenship in 1843. There were of course queries by enemies of Chester Arthur born 1829, Vermont, as as you will know, Vice President to President Garfield who was assassinated in 1883. No proof was offered seriously as to his ineligibility.
I find it ironic that President-elect Obama should laud the Declaration of Independence. This included the fight against the British. His father was a British citizen, as you know.
Perhaps this whole business will bring forward a hard and fast enforcement of requirements, for anyone who wishes to get on the ballot for the Presidency of the United States.
educational history; MS Washington University
previous drug use Some pot for a few years, LSD once, very frightening, no thanks, Cocaine 3 lines, and what is the deal with that, spending $$$ for a numb nose
current and past addresses; Boston, San Diego, St. Louis, Los Angles,Tulsa, Alameda
children Sadly none
work addresses; Tulsa (lot of job's here for welders, oil workers)
phone numbers, SS#; Well My phone is unlisted and probably more secure than my SS# sad to say. Unless I get a specific ring tone, I never answerer the phone anyway, I have service for messages.
photos Sad to say don't know how to, give me a step by step and Ill post a photo
Ok little j your up
Belief that the CoLB scanned and published on the internet is a forgery is a matter of faith.
Sandra Ramsey Lines writes; Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?" It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.
Well, the number is not blacked out on the images posted on the factcheck site. Check it out for yourself
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
“Arthur stated his father was given American citizenship in 1843.”
I’ve been looking for that... Do you know when and where he actually did he say that? In the LOC papers?
I understand and agree.
Kevmo asserts that because there is no further law defining the terms of the Constitutional prohibition against quartering of soldiers in private homes, there likewise need be no law setting out a process for verifying the qualifications of a presidential candidate.
The 3rd Amendment reads No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Although there is no clarifying court ruling* or law further defining conditions, the amendment clearly leaves an opening for laws to be enacted.
*Actually there is one court ruling, Engblom v. Carey.
Why is that ironic?
IMHO, Donofrio's case was the most interesting, I'm sorry the Court didn't take it on.
This means releasing a certified copy of your long form Birth Certificate as opposed to a Certification of Live Birth which could still be obtained if the birth took place outside of the State and merely provides the information submitted by applicant himself (or herself).
Would those bits be enough for Polarik’s analysis to be taken seriously by you? No? And without some kind of verification, everything you just posted could be a lie.
I’m just using your logic, you know.
Yes, interesting but without basis. A Donofrio victory would have not only disqualified Obama but also a Bobby Jindal while redefining US citizenship and turning the 14th Amendment upside down.
Belief that the CoLB scanned and published on the internet is a forgery is a matter of faith.
***There’s a heckuva lot more evidence that it’s a forgery than that it is genuine, and it has to do with the electronic versions of the documents presented. Focusing on this one little tidbit is an attempt at obfuscation. For one thing, the expert was right, there was no reason to obliterate it on the fightthesmears website and you even point out that several weeks later, the number is shown on the in-the-tank media Factcheck site. Now, at that point what is a matter of faith is that Obama & team didn’t go and GET a number. And all the other evidence that the fightthesmears CoLB and the Factcheck CoLB are both forgeries is compelling, rather than a matter of faith. And that means the only evidence presented to date for his qualification has likely been a forgery, and he does not meet the standard. Any other person presenting forged evidence towards qualification would not get the job desired and would likely be facing criminal charges.
Affidavit Supporting Polarik’s Evidence in Keyes vs. Lingle
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2159775/posts
01/06/2009 11:52:38 AM PST · by Kevmo · 381 replies · 3,689+ views
Keyes vs. Lingle ^ | 12/4/2008 | Sandra Ramsey Lines
This I cannot find but it is a minefield of supposition. I find this gem and it is difficult to pin it down.
"I have been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche from the Library of Congress".
This states that the swearing in took place in New York State. This is important because although William Arthur moved first to Fairfield, Vermont, he later moved to New York State. Who the "I" was, I would not care to venture. If it was true, I would wager Chester Arthur would have stated this in the course of conversation. There was discredited investigator, a Mr Hinman. He was hired by enemies of Chester Arthur. Hinman lead off by saying Chester Arthur was born in Ireland. Anything Hinman said after that was likely taken with a pinch of salt.
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.