Posted on 11/20/2008 3:46:28 AM PST by dascallie
Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 - for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
(Excerpt) Read more at community.marketwatch.com ...
Let me end the suspense. SCOTUS will dodge the issue by declaring it not in their jurisdiction.
Berg seems to have fallen off the scope.
Thank you for the clarity in your response quoting the 20th Amendment Section 3.
Thank God the Senators in the ‘30s saw fit to amend the Constitution.
Really. How many times have they declared “not in their jurisdiction” after they decide to conference a case? Is it frequently?
What percentage of the cases do they decide to hear out of number of cases they discuss in conference? Is it 1 in 10?
I would love to know.
Don’t forget, this court is still five liberals and four conservatives.
Pray without ceasing!
There is a very distinct possibly that we could end up with a McCain / Biden administration. Primarily because Congress is not able to introduce new candidates for President as part of their participation in the resolution of a non-majority election. Biden would be a new candidate for President as the VP slot is handled via a separate vote.
Of course, this is only ONE of many possible outcomes. I can easily see a situation where Biden will be the President as well. That would require that after the electoral process and after Obama is sworn in, SCOTUS rules that he is not eligible to serve as President. This would require Biden to assume command and I believe that we would end up with a Biden / Hillary ticket.
I also believe that the only benefit from this will be an increase in popcorn sales.
The EC also has to elect the Vice President, so they’d still have the problem of who to replace Biden with.
Does anyone know if any other candidate received even a single electoral vote? If so, we could end up with that individual as President.
bttt
That is definately not true. He may be deemed elected as VP, or the DNC may be found to have failed to field a legitimate candidate, in which case Biden who was chosen by Hussein, is also inelligible, but a president will still have to be chosen by the electors, from the field of candidates.
Hussein will be allowed to have his presidency, and in the greatest irony in all history, it will be done, "for the good of the country".
That’s the portion of the 12th Amendment that was amended by the 20th Amendment.
If four of the nine agree on the merits, a case is scheduled for further briefs and argument.
This is getting legs for real .. now comes the time for the nine to prove their loyalty - Constitution or public opinion.
I’m trying to see how TheOne* will weasel out of this with SCOTUS helping him.
It’s quite obvious by now that fraud has been committed. Getting a BC is the easiest thing to do. It’s a no brainer.
Anyone of us would have gotten a copy of our BCs as soon as it was asked for. We would have moved Heaven and earth to get it on time. I think all of us have a (misplaced) copy of one someplace, or our parents do.
We don't all need sarcasm tags...
Of course, the same could be done with votes for Hillary ....
At present, the best I could find, we use US Code, section 1401 to define natural born:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:
* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
If the SCOTUS uses this code as defining natural born then McCain is OK and Obama is not.
Another posiblility is that the SCOTUS could define natural born in a way that Obama is included even if he was born in Kenya? If that happens what is to be done about the fact that Obama used a forged document to show he was born in Hawaii? Should someone elected using fraud be allowed to serve?
A completely private affair conference? Why is that? Whatever happened to “the public’s right to know”???
Oh wait. I keep forgetting. That only applies when it’s a Republican or a non-leftist involved. DemocRats deserve their privacy from the prying eyes of the people.
Got it.
If citizens at birth is the same as ‘natural born.’ That seems possible. Maybe a constitutional scholar can help.
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.