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 ...
"But if you have citizenship by birth you are a natural born citizen."
"Your definition perhaps, but the historical record has slightly more restrictive ones."
None of which have legal weight. Given all historical text you can find somebody to say anything. That doesn't make it law. No law defines "natural born citizen" as anything but, citizen by birth.
They cannot reveal private information, but by saying what they did they are saying the original records support the birth certificate. And the birth certificate says he was born in Honolulu.
wERE DID THEY SAY THAT?
I'm not. I've been reading the threads. I've also been checking the sources.
"There’s SO much research out there .. much of it very fine and detailed right on this site."
Only on the surface, if you don't question things. Most of it, on the key points, fails. It is either just wrong, or makes assertions that are unproven.
"This is the Constitutional clause dealing with the natural born citizen matter:..."
Nobody dispute what the clause says.
"And the reason for the particular attention to this issues:"
"The Founding Fathers specifically insisted on a “natural born citizen” to avoid electing to the Presidency a person of divided loyalties, that is to say a foreigner whose priority might not be the best interests of America herself."
Yes, I agree that was their motive. That's the reason they made the "natural born citizen" requirement. To disallow immigrants from another country to come here, be naturalized, and be president.
Credibility is exactly the point.
***Then let us address it. Hoosiermama’s dad was an appellate lawyer. So is congressman billybob. There are a few lawyers here on FR that could address this issue. It’s very simple. What is the threshold of credibility for an issue? When is it no longer the purview of Tinfoil Hat Conspiracists? When an issue has 6 concurrent cases before the SCOTUS, has been forwarded for conference 5 times, and there are 10 MORE cases winding their way through the court system, does that meet the threshold? Chemtrails, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Flight 800, none of those issues made it this far. The Monica Lewinsky thing did.
We’re constantly told that we are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists. My counter argument is that the issue has been forwarded for conference 5 times, twice in Berg’s case. I would like to know how rare that is, or if it really is “just procedure”. Congressman Billybob says that 1/200 cases are not rejected outright. So have these cases made it past that filter yet? What are the chances that a case will be forwarded for conference?
Using that chance, N, then it’s (1/N)^5 that all of these cases were forwarded for conference. When N was 200, look where we ended up...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2160501/posts
“The fact that these lawsuits have been forwarded for conference 4 times is a 1 in 1.6Billion chance.”
The odds have increased even more. The Lightfoot case was Distributed for Conference today by Roberts. #5.
***Yikes. That’s (1/200)^5, which is a 1 in 320Billion chance. When you combine that with the odds that the fake CoLB posted by the nom de plume “hayIBaPhorgerie” has the same time of birth as zer0bama.which is 1/34560 that 2 people would be born at 7:24pm. Now the odds are about 1 in a genuine QUADRILLION, or a thousand trillions. And yet, we’re all just a bunch of kooky conspiracy theorists. Is Judge Roberts a conspiracy theorist?
If nobody disputed these claims then casual readers would all believe these claims were known facts, as many already do. Outsiders would think FR was filled with wackos, which is how most of them see proponents of this issue.
It has the potential to distract everyone from real issues that are bound to come up in the Obama presidency, and to poison the mind against our system of government.
The world should see FR as an original, wide-ranging, intelligent, creative, and conservative forum. Which it mostly is. I’m a huge fan of FreeRepublic. When people read these posts I want them to know that we don’t all buy into the nonsense.
If you disagree with me, fine. That’s your right. You should express your disagreement and argue your points. Don’t engage in personal attacks because someone doesn’t agree with you. It only poisons the atmosphere and makes the attacker look ignorant.
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
From their "Applying for Home Lands" application...you can find this at http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl. Cut and paste - won't take the time to html it for you.
>>>but by saying what they did they are saying the original records support the birth certificate. And the birth certificate says he was born in Honolulu.<<<
Lie that you have been called on several times.
Everything seems to be moot issues....Check out gretawire or listen to CNN breaking news.....We’re trying to verify through Fr channels now.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "The Silence of Snow"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
May ask what are you talking about?
As Jim points out, I’ve been here a long time.
***So have I. Longer than you.
I was here even before registering for the account, reading and searching for information on Clinton’s crimes. I was telling my friends he would be impeached before anyone heard of Monica Lewinsky.
***Same here.
For people to call me an Obot, troll, Obamanoid, etc., because I dispute these eligibility claims is absurd. That’s no way to win an argument.
***I agree that calling long term FReepers Obamanoid and Obot is going too far. But the Troll term may not be. I have been called a troll in the past by Fred Thompson supporters (none of whom were here as long as me). It seems like that term has been allowed and isn’t even considered name calling by the admin mods. I do not call long term FReepers a troll lightly, it is only after they’ve been pointed out the information they so casually gloss over time & again that they earn the designation. Plenty of people disagree with me, but very few are on this CoLB troll list. Of course, such considerations do not really apply for newbies.
Credibility is exactly the point.
***I agree and I seek to settle on this issue. It was a separate post.
If nobody disputed these claims then casual readers would all believe these claims were known facts, as many already do.
***And yet, none of our claims to credibility are disputed. They’re usually met with an argument from silence — the SCOTUS will rule this way or they’ll throw it out or some other argument from the silence of the future. That is not a credible argument, it is a logical fallacy and yet the trolls continue to use it.
Outsiders would think FR was filled with wackos, which is how most of them see proponents of this issue.
***I think this position is simply filled with Bovine Scatology. FR has had its fair share of conspiracy theorists, and only a few short weeks ago someone basically told me that Hildebeast was responsible for Vince Foster’s death. This is a constitutional issue which has risen to the highest constitutional authority in our land and we’re discussing it on this constitutional forum. Calling us wackos while overlooking the obvious signs of legitimacy is a form of trollhood.
It has the potential to distract everyone from real issues
***Feel free to pursue your issues. How’s that goin’ so far? Did it help stop zer0bama from getting elected? Um, no. You work your side of the street, we’ll work ours. If you have been a consistent voice against conspiracy theories in the past and you got the Paula Jones thing right from the get-go, then you may be onto something. As far as I can tell, no one meets that set of criteria. If you have not been such a consistent voice against conspiracy theories, then why are you keying up on this one that has the potential to knock off zer0bama?
that are bound to come up in the Obama presidency, and to poison the mind against our system of government.
***Horse Hockey. But I’m running out of time so I’ll argue against it later.
The world should see FR as an original, wide-ranging, intelligent, creative, and conservative forum. Which it mostly is. I’m a huge fan of FreeRepublic.
***ditto.
When people read these posts I want them to know that we don’t all buy into the nonsense.
***Then address the questions that are put to you. If it were all nonsense, it would never have gotten to the SCOTUS.
If you disagree with me, fine. That’s your right. You should express your disagreement and argue your points.
***We do. And then the trolls casually ignore those points and return back to the vomit of their own talking points.
Don’t engage in personal attacks because someone doesn’t agree with you.
***I don’t. The admin mods appear to have determined from past behavior that calling someone a troll is not a personal attack. I do not level the accusation of subject-specific troll lightly when it comes to someone who’s been here a while. It’s not on the basis of them disagreeing with me, that is simply a straw argument, again a classical fallacy. The basis for calling someone a troll is that they deliver crickets on points of substance while continuing to argue fallaciously and follow the typical CoLB troll argumentation line.
It only poisons the atmosphere and makes the attacker look ignorant.
***Classic fallacies make you look ignorant. Ignoring posts to you that cover substantial ground make you look like you have an agenda. Now that you’ve made it to the bottom of this post, you and I can generate something useful to Free Republic if you are willing. FR needs a definition of troll. If you and I can agree on it, then it must be a good definition.
When you continue to assert one clear falsehood after another, does that make FR look good? what a joke you are, whining for cover when it is you who keep repeating the lie regarding the CoLB, reapting the lie regarding HI supposedly affirmint Barry was born in Hawaii, calling the certification of live birth a ‘birth certificate’ when you’ve been shown repeatedly why that is incorrect. You are playing a game of deceive the readers. And you whine that you want to be given respect? You’re joking, surely shirley.
I never, ever watch CNN, but have tuned it in to watch hoping against hope that you are right!
Will not close this thread until I hear more from the FR lawyers you have mentioned!
When do you think it will come up again on CNN?
Maybe in the next breaking news section....DOn’t know, I’ve been listening too.
What is it?
please ping me when it’s up. now in addition to one arm and fever, my dsl broke and i’m back to super slow dial-up!
So far I see nothing on this at CNN ONline.
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.