Seattle Homemaker Fined $13,000 For Doing Background Check On Obama

January 28, 2013 | Linda Jordan

[butterdezillion]

The Constitution is right. All I’m asking anybody to do is follow it.

You already said you didn’t know who is supposed to stop an unqualified President elect from “acting as President” at noon on Jan 20th. It can’t be Congress; they are already done with their Constitutionally-prescribed part in the process, as are the voters. Because the Constitution does NOT give the job specifically to the political process and because the timing of it means it CANNOT fall within the described political process, it falls within the normal workings of the Constitution’s definitions. Specifically, it is the job of the JUDICIARY to settle cases and controversies regarding what is in the Constitution.

It does not fall to Congress - CANNOT fall to Congress, according to the 20th Amendment - and this WA judge is DEAD WRONG. The sanctions are because the judges, justices, AG, and SOS all KNOW they are dead wrong, and want to scare Jordan and anybody else away from thinking that they have any means of redress. It’s thuggery, pure and simple.

[butterdezillion]

What do there have to be 4 of, in order for the case to be heard?

(That is, unless the 2 people whose job is at stake in the case recuse themselves and then there need to be only THREE, and those 3 know who they are and would then bother to ask to pursue it farther).

Call it whatever you want, but if Scalia, Thomas, and Alito knew that they had the power to make it happen they would pursue this. As long as Kagan and Sotomayor keep their fat rear ends into this business Scalia, Thomas, and Alito know they can never get anywhere with it. Not when it is first brought to them, not when it’s presented for conference. The issue is a deck stacked against those three, and the people who are stacking that deck so that 3 is never enough.... are the judges who won’t recuse themselves from a case where their position is at stake.

And you’ve never said if that’s OK with you - for a judge to decide the case against herself. Is that an OK thing to you? Consider it just as a hypothetical if you don’t believe that’s the situation here. Is it OK for a judge to decide the case brought forth against herself?

[greeneyes]

No predisposed belief there...naw, none. So much for justice being blind.

******************************************************
Well the judge was blind was he not? So blind that he could not see the truth when it was a plain as the nose on his face!

[butterdezillion]

I’ll have to think about that. An ineligible guy can fill the whole system with his surrogates and then even when it is found out that he is a foreign enemy combatant all his surrogates remain. If that’s what this doctrine means then that is downright dangerous and the coup is already accomplished.

If that’s the legal condition we’re in, then we are in much worse shape than even I thought, and the entire system has to be abandoned. There’s no working within it any more.

If Kagan and Sotomayor’s jobs are not at stake then the focus is just a little bit different. Should Kagan and Sotomayor be able to decide a case where the fate of their sugar daddy is at stake? But nobody will ever stop them. There’s no way to work within this system any more.

If what you’ve said is true then America is dead. Not mostly dead. All dead. That means we the people have nothing left to lose. Time to start over.

[butterdezillion]

Go back to your hole, troll.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Furthermore, why do you think that Congress is even CAPABLE of interpreting and applying the US Constitution?

You realize that Congress wrote all of the amendments to the Constitution, including the 20th?

The people elect some dirt farmer to go to Washington DC and all of a sudden that makes that dirt farmer an expert on interpreting the Constitution? How about we elect people to be our brain surgeons too, why we’re at it, to make sure that no brain surgeon becomes “too powerful”?

...and yet you, who claim no legal training, have decided that every court in America, from SCOTUS on down, is wrong, and in fact so wrong as to obviously be corrupt? Did it ever occur to you that the reason every judge in America and 99.99% of all lawyers-- including prominent conservative constitutional lawyers who are challenging Obama on health care and term limits-- disagree with you is perhaps because you're wrong? Did that thought ever cross your mind for a second?

Your comment about "dirt farmers" not really understanding Constitutional interpretation reminds me of an old Jewish expression which can be translated as "if only your ears could hear what your mouth is saying."

[butterdezillion]

Healthcare is a political issue. Why should anybody who considers Presidential eligibility outside the realm of the judiciary ever think that healthcare would be addressable by the judiciary? Don’t they know that the Supreme Court can’t overturn the results of the election that put in place the Congress who passed healthcare?

Do I really need to put the sarc tag on that?

The arguments being made are inconsistent. They don’t fit what America is about. The DO, however, fit what I’d expect threatened and intimidated people to say and do.

Dirt farming is the stock I came from, BTW, so that word is to me not a slur in any way, shape, or form. My brothers and father could farm circles around any SCOTUS justice, and it’s probably cleaner and more worthy work after all. But they wouldn’t try to be a brain surgeon, and nobody in their right mind would want them to.

The people in Congress who wrote the amendments could easily interpret what THEY intended to say when they wrote the amendement. That’s not the same thing as understanding and interpreting what somebody else intended to say. Two different skillsets. Nice, though, to know that you think that the work of your profession could easily be done in a more trustworthy manner by dirt farmers than by somebody who spent the money you spent to get the training you have.

But it’s totally stupid that we are even discussing this. A lawyer is telling me that Congress should be interpreting and applying the US Constitution because if the judiciary did it, it would be tyranny. Wow. Ninth grade civics students could rip that to shreds just with the most basic stuff of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the simple duties outlined in the Articles of the Constitution.

And that’s the part that messes with a person’s mind (which is what demoralization and gaslighting by trolls is all about). You’re either toying with me, or you’re not as capable as a ninth-grade civics student. Is the world really this upside-down? It’s nuts.

[little jeremiah]

There are a lot of ‘em lately; professionals IMHO. Hired. Fogbow/administration etc. They’re dedicated.

[butterdezillion]

They’re slipping though. A sign-up date of mid-July 2009 (right before Fukino’s 2nd public statement, prompted by Miss Tickly’s probing regarding an amended BC) and EVERY POST in the past 3 1/2 years has been mocking the eligibility issue.

Seems like the sheepskin is slipping off and the pointy ears are showing... careless...

[cynwoody]

Not really, I owned a supermarket with register scanners in
1981. All grocery products had bar codes then.

But they didn't have 'em anywhere near the Naval Observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLjzTisZoI

[ConstantSkeptic]

Of course, if Obama is found to be ineligible, he will be removed from office.

At this point, Obama is President and, as President, can only be removed by impeachment. That would be entirely up to Congress.

[Nero Germanicus]

There have been at least ten court decisions that I know of finding that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen and no court decisions have ruled that he doesn’t qualify. Since the Supreme Court or state Supreme Courts have not overturned any of them, they stand.
I understand that Obama’s birth facts have not been established to your satisfaction. But they have been established to the satisfaction of those judges.
Obama can nominate Mickey Mouse and Osama bin Laden to the Supreme Court but if they aren’t confirmed by the Senate, they don’t get to sit on the High Court. By the way, Elena Kagan is second only to Thurgood Marshall in the number of times she has recused herself from voting on cases. That is because she was Solicitor General before becoming a Justice. Marshall was also a Solicitor General. No one knows who if anybody recuses in cert conferences, those votes aren’t recorded.

Here are the ten rulings finding that Obama qualifies:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Page 13 of the decision.

Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint

Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

[JoeProBono]

BTW, Mickey Mouse and Osama bin Laden are dead? ;-{)

[BigGuy22]

“Call it whatever you want, but if Scalia, Thomas, and Alito knew that they had the power to make it happen they would pursue this.”
__

I see. Now you are not only the sole arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, you are also the official mind-reader who tells us what SCOTUS justices are thinking.

You are truly ignorant of Supreme Court procedures, aren’t you? Have you read any decisions? It is common practice for dissenting justices to make their opinions known, sometimes in blisteringly strong terms. It’s not uncommon for Justice Scalia, for example, to publish scathing dissents to cases where he’s on the losing side. He has never been shy about articulating his point of view, regardless of whether or not it would have any practical effect.

Get it? They put their opinions on the record even though they know they’re on the losing side, they know their opinion will have no impact for the moment.

You’re just making stuff up now.

[BigGuy22]

Of course. The point I was making was that, even in that case, Kagan and Sotomayor’s appointments would be secure. There is no automatic voiding or undoing of an officer’s actions just because he or she is later found to be ineligible for the position.

[BigGuy22]

"You already said you didn’t know who is supposed to stop an unqualified President elect from “acting as President” at noon on Jan 20th."
__

That's right.

But keep in mind, you are confusing two separate questions. The one you are raising is "who is supposed to stop an unqualified President elect"; and if a President-elect were found to be unqualified, that question would have to be addressed.

But notice that what the Amendment says is, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify..." (emphasis added)

In other words, the Amendment only kicks in once the determination of ineligibility is made.

So, your tortured logic concerning who has the power to stop an unqualified president is irrelevant to the question of who has the power to make that determination -- and, according to the Constitution, that power belongs to the voters and to the Congress.

Your argument that the Courts are mandated to get involved falls short all around.

[moose07]

YAWN.....Sniff sniff....Burp.

[BigGuy22]

“An ineligible guy can fill the whole system with his surrogates and then even when it is found out that he is a foreign enemy combatant all his surrogates remain.”
__

LOL, a little melodramatic, aren’t we?

Most Executive appointments are at the President’s discretion. So the surreptitious foreign enemy combatant can put all his surrogates in place, but as soon as he is uncovered and replaced, his successor can fire them and bring in a new crew.

Supreme Court justices are in a different category. Of course they are not seated at the sole discretion of the President — the Senate has to confirm them — and what are loosely referred to as “lifetime appointments” in fact only extend “during good behavior.” They can be removed by impeachment and conviction.

[moose07]

LOL! Donated yet?

Click the Pic.

[JoeProBono]