SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN BARNETT, KEYES ET AL V OBAMA ET AL

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.

widdle_wabbit wrote:

[I had written:]
“None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle”.
Word salad? Just mix em up with tongs and call it an argument.

I've no problem with snipping for brevity and focus, but here I'll point out that you are just pretending, playing dumb. No, my argument was not beyond your comprehenstion. In our time, the legal references that spoke to this issue said that native-born citizens qualify as Article II natural-born citizens. It may have been an open question back in the 1800's, but it got settled.

“I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when then don’t like who is winning”.
Winning? Charlie Sheen winning? Are you winning, Blade?

In my own life, I'd say, well, mixed bag. Thanks for asking. I'm dealing with reality. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

“When you can explain why the status of Slaves and Indians did not comport with your ‘Black’s law’ definition, let me know. Till then, you are just making noise.”

Well, because of reality. The sixth edition of /Blacks/ which I quoted is old enough that the writers and editors could not have foreseen Barack Obama’s candidacy, but no so old that slavery was legal or that American Indians were considered to be a savages of a lesser class.

“You are going to have to make your point more clear. It may make sense to you, but it does not to me.”

I’m O.K. with that. I might be able to explain it terms you would accept, but if not, well, you and I understanding each other is not the center of our concerns. I’ll try: For as long as I (and I’d guess you too) have been alive, all the legal references that spoke to the issue said that native-born citizens qualify as natural-born citizens; no one in our time said different until a certain faction need reasons why Barack Obama cannot really be president.

Waxing eloquently in righteous indignation? Except you forgot to address the point. The FACT of Slavery and Indians PROVES your Jus Soli theory completely wrong. I am not discussing the morality of their status, I am pointing out the fact of it. Address the FACT or shut up.

I thought that was what you were implying. Run out of arguments and you turn to ad Hominem. Not that it will do any good, but I will point out a few things for you. Firstly, I was against BARACK being President when I first HEARD he was from "Kenya" because that is an automatic disqualification in most minds. Ah, but you say, He isn't from KENYA. Maybe not, but he certainly made efforts to make people think he was from Kenya.

I count 38 links to news stories or videos stating or implying that Barack was FROM KENYA! I even recall the issue being brought up in the Keyes/Obama debate for US Senate seat from Illinois where Keyes mentions that Barack is from Kenya, to which Barack replies that he isn't running for President, just the US Senate where it doesn't matter.

So yeah, the guy has implied repeatedly that he was from Kenya, why would anyone concentrate on his foreign father first? Yeah, that disqualifies him too, but being from Kenya disqualifies him first! Of course, that turned out to be a lie, so people looked at item number 2. Foreign Father. Now it's looking like THAT is a lie as well.

Here is your link to those 38 examples of videos or media reporting that he was from Kenya. I'm sure that four years ago their were hundreds, but people are busy scrubbing the net.

http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/WhatToBelieve.htm

The bottom line is your man is a pathological and habitual liar, as are most Democrats.

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.