Barack Husein Obama...Mmm...mmm...mmm...
Posted on 06/20/2011 12:56:33 PM PDT by Elderberry
On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.
This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:
a. In the United States of America presidential elections are conducted by individual states, through state ballots and the states are the ones vetting eligibility of different candidates to be on respective state ballots. Presidential candidate has to be a Natural born citizen based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution.
Legitimacy of the state ballot and state elections is a right and a function guaranteed to the individual states based on the 10th amendment, as it is not one of enumerated powers reserved for the Federal government. No decision by Congress, no ratification by Congress can usurp such powers.
b. Plaintiffs are stating, that 2008 election was not legitimate, as Mr. Obama is not a Natural born citizen, being a child of a foreign national and not having any valid US vital records. Recent disclosure of Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate shows it to be a forgery, CT Social Security number 042-68-xxxx, that he is using, was never assigned to him and there is evidence of fraud and/or forgery in his Selective Service certificate and his educational records.
The Plaintiffs were denied standing and the case was dismissed. Current decision by Bond v United States gives the Plaintiffs standing to proceed. In an unanimous decision the court stated “The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of Federalism. See New York, supra, at 181.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
The States can make any sorts of laws they wish to make concerning the persons they choose for the Electoral College so long as such laws are not in conflict with the Constitution. Here's what the Constitution says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Obviously, now this whole process has become a pro forma affair where the States hold elections for entire slates of elector whose names have been submitted by the political parties; and some State laws require that the electors so chosen must vote for candidate of the party that placed their name on the ballot. (When I was a kid in NY, the names of these elector nominees were there on the ballot. Here in NJ now our ballots just say "Electors for Jones.") The States could have their own laws that the candidates the electors are pledged to are Constitutionally eligible to be President. I believe NJ has such laws, which shows just how much good they do. (One of the minor party candidates here last time was born in Nicaragua. I think, and our glorious Secretary of State did nothing about this.) But none of these State laws has any application in a Federal Court so far as I know.
Serious question, not being a twit.
No need to apologize. No question is stupid the first time it is asked.
ML/NJ
Ping! :)
Did you even read it?
Thanks! My very first PING!
The friggin Libs better not get any of the South and Southwest! I want to retire there or if SHTF = Puerto Vallarta ,MX At least in MX you know about Gov corruption!
PV is very safe and affordable.
The friggin Libs better not get any of the South and Southwest! I want to retire there or if SHTF = Puerto Vallarta ,MX At least in MX you know about Gov corruption!
PV is very safe and affordable.
Norm Lenhart wrote: “In mere seconds the post will be filled with those telling us what a waste of time and a distraction and how we can’t win with this issue and....”
And we bat 1000 on that.
Really, at this point, have people not learned to question Orly Taitz’ legal theories? A glance at the decision she’s citing shows that it is utterly irrelevant to Barnett v. Obama. Carol Anne Bond has standing for a 10’th Amendment challenge to a federal statute because Bond herself is being prosecuted under that statute, plus there’s no question that a verdict favorable to Bond would provide remedy.
piytar queried: “You mean the BC that clearly identifies a non-citizen as his father, thereby proving obastard is not a “natural born” citizen?”
You’ve been had. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.
Black’s Law Dictionary was first published in 1861. That means it doesn’t inform what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant when the Constitution was ratified.
The proper resource is Vittles Law of Nations. That was the authority on the meaning of legal terms at the relevant time, and it defines two requirements for “natural born”: born in the nation and born of citizens.
So YOU’VE been had. Or you are being deceitful. Dunno which...
Darkwing, check this guy “BladeBryan’s” posting history. He exists ONLY to quash challenges to obastard’s eligibility. Not making any comment on whether or not obastard is an NBC, and frankly think it CAN’T go anywhere at this stage, but does someone who only posts to defend obastard belong here?
Can I get me some kitties?
Black’s is a dictionary. It is not law.
Based on the recent SCOTUS opinion, individuals have standing wherever a State would have standing.
Thanks for the ping.
All that proves is that Black's law Dictionary is wrong. :) "Natural Born Citizen" is a term of art in the context of Article II, and it most certainly does NOT mean what you're Black's definition says, and that is easy to prove. Neither Indians nor Slaves gained any sort of citizenship by being "born within the jurisdiction of a national government."
Legal Jargon is fine, but when it conflicts with actual facts, it needs to be slapped down hard because it is misleading.
So YOU’VE been had. Or you are being deceitful. Dunno which...
I keep pointing out to people that Slaves and Indians were not considered citizens (till after the 14th Amendment, and THAT only applied to former slaves.) even though they were "Born within the jurisdiction of a national government", so obviously their definition is not functional. In any case, article II is about allegiance, and that can only be imparted by loyal parents, not dirt.
Congress isn’t given authority in the Presidential election. Since the authority to determine eligibility is not given specifically to any other body and, as you mentioned, the Constitution envisions that a President elect could make it past both the states and Congress even though being ineligible, the ultimate responsibility falls to the Supreme Court. They’ve evaded that responsibility by claiming they haven’t had any “cases” before them to decide, since nobody has standing to bring a case.
But a state does have standing to determine eligibility; it is supposedly happening all the time, since Secretaries of State in some states are specifically required to only include candidates who are eligible for the positions they seek. IIRC, California is one state where the SOS has previously kept somebody off the ballot because they were not Constitutionally eligible, so I would think because of that precedent and equal protection/due process, citizens would have a valid legal reason to say that eligibility must be determined for ALL candidates.
The point that could be problematic here, from a preliminary glance and a very non-expert eye, is the lack of a federal action that usurps states’ rights. The feds haven’t done anything on this issue. And state officials have refused to do anything on it either.
Or he he can show:
The one he found among his mother’s belongings upon her passing in 1995.
The one he used to get an American Passport.
The one his mother used to place into the school system.
The one he presented to get his law license, marriage license, etc.
He has at least three or four.
Sounds correct; hope a legal 'eagle/beagle' will also weigh in on this.
I think you are wrong. The 12th Amendment states:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the PresidentThe 20th Amendment says:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.And Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 says:
[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.I supposed I could quote the impeachment sections too. There really is no role for the Supreme Court except to decide controversies where the meaning of laws passed by the Congress and of the Constitution are in dispute. I know many have been brainwashed into thinking that the Court legitimately can decide anything it wants to decide but that clearly wasn't what the Framers had in mind.
ML/NJ
Barack Husein Obama...Mmm...mmm...mmm...
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.