Posted on 01/16/2009 6:18:42 AM PST by FreeAtlanta
Thousands of urgent appeals for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States are being delivered to the justices as part of WND's campaign to seek the truth.
The high court has conferences scheduled on cases addressing Obama's eligibility tomorrow and again on Jan. 23. They cite Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the office of president can only be filled by "a natural born citizen."
Because the Supreme Court justices do not accept faxes, e-mails or telephone calls, WND assembled an option for a delivery of letters through FedEx, and 1,344 people signed up to send a message to the justices, resulting in 12,096 messages.
The campaign was a followup to one in December that generated more than 60,000...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Even though Biden, Pelosi etc are all fiends, when the messiah has been proved to be a lying fraud, some of the supporting roles may be compromised. The rot goes far. Plus anyone who might fill the spot will be tainted. The thrill will be gone.
Produce some he is eligible, and we just might shut up.
Burden of proof should lie with the applicant, not the burden of proof of a negative with the employer. We use the same standard with people who employ anyone. The applicant is required show documents indicating (and the employer to verify) that the prospective imployee is a citizen or otherwise qualified for the job.
Obama is not our ruler, he is our employee!
Aha. So when the Supreme Court sent Berg’s case back to the 3rd Circuit this week they were only funnin’ with him?
Burden of proof in any legal proceeding lies with the plaintiff, doesn't it?
But this is a employee requirement. It just so happens that the requirement is in the Constitution instead of some corporate handbook.
Employers require their prospective employees to prove their qualifications every day.
We are the employers, the citizens of the United States.
So, pray tell, how can he swear to protect and defend the very document he apparently disregards? All he has to do is show the paperwork, and end the whole thing.
McCain did.
But what neither the Constitution or federal law does is outline how candidates must prove their eligibility and who to. A loophole that has never been a problem in the past, and with the Democratic Congress won't be closed any time soon.
So, pray tell, how can he swear to protect and defend the very document he apparently disregards? All he has to do is show the paperwork, and end the whole thing.
But is he disregarding it? If Obama is ineligible and he knows it then the answer is yes. But as far as Obama is concerned he's proved he's eligible. You may not agree. You may doubt the authenticity of his COLB. You may call the Hawiian officials liars until the cows come home. But unless you can present some evidence that Obama is lying then there isn't a court in the land that will listen to you.
McCain did.
Kudoes to McCain. The fact is that he didn't have to. And if you believe some of the claims out there, like Donofrio's, it didn't matter. McCain is still Constitutionally ineligible.
Of course it is.
when the GOre election decision came back the MSM tooted the decision as 5=4. The actual decision was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was on the procedural part...(BTW dad got both of them correct as the VCP that supported the decision)
The Constitution may not have specified to whom he had to prove his eligibility, but the answer is simple--all of us--his employers.
Most who want no proof are either Obama supporters (worshipers) who fear he is not eligible, or those who fear the potential civil unrest should he be disqualified.
If the latter is indeed the deciding factor, we have de facto mob rule, without even gathering the mob.
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” - Thomas Jefferson”
Except that the current law which allows that was passed in the early 1980's. What you need to look at is what laws were in effect in 1961.
The Constitution may not have specified to whom he had to prove his eligibility, but the answer is simple--all of us--his employers.
You cannot make things up as you go along. The fact, unfortunately, is that Obama has done no more or no less to prove his eligibility than any other man elected president. If you want to change that, and I agree it needs to be changed, then you're either going to have to do it at the state or federal level. The federal level is out because of the Democratic congress. Changes at the state level would no doubt meet legal challenges but I think they could be made to stand.
Most who want no proof are either Obama supporters (worshipers) who fear he is not eligible, or those who fear the potential civil unrest should he be disqualified.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I've been asking for proof all along. Any proof, any solid evidence at all that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. To date that has been met with silence. Or bogus, manufactured evidence. Or wild, unsubstantiated tales. But if you come up with solid evidence that Obama is lying and I guarantee you that you'll rip the cover right off the whole matter. And as for fear of unrest, I have no interest in that. I'm interested in the rule of law being upheld and if Obama is ineligible and was elected fraudulently then he needs to go and let the chips fall where they may. But in order to do that you need to prove your case.
Well, no. The per curiam decision was 7 to 2 and held that the Florida Supreme Court violated President Bush's 14th Amendment rights to equal protection. But the meat of the matter, the 5 to 4 decision, was the ruling that no alternative method for counting the votes could be implemented before the Florida time limit ran out. It's all here in the Decision.
BTW dad got both of them correct as the VCP that supported the decision)
And we'll see how your Dad does on Berg v Obama, et.al.
You said — “Burden of proof should lie with the applicant, not the burden of proof of a negative with the employer. We use the same standard with people who employ anyone. The applicant is required show documents indicating (and the employer to verify) that the prospective imployee is a citizen or otherwise qualified for the job.”
That’s not a good argument for *your position*...
You see, the “employer” is a “collective” — it’s called the American Voter. That’s the employer. I qualify it down to the American voter, and not everyone, because only the ones who *voted* can be considered “involved” in the employment contract.
So, the “collective employer” has accepted Obama’s information as valid and as qualifying under the Constitution. Therefore, the “employer” (that you refer too) says, “You’re hired!”
—
On the other hand, if it’s not an “employer” argument, but a “legal argument” — then that’s okay, too. In that case all you have to do is come up with some legal evidence that a court of law will accept and use, and “you’ve got your case”.
It’s just too bad that no one has been able to come up with it yet. Once January 20th comes around, then the only “legal remedy” is Impeachment and Conviction by Congress — which I don’t hold out much hope for (especially when we consider Clinton’s experience...).
You said — “Aha. So when the Supreme Court sent Berg’s case back to the 3rd Circuit this week they were only funnin’ with him?”
Ummm..., Baghdad Bob said it was a great success and they are looking forward to victory...
First,we do need even one state to require that the president be proven to be a Natural Born Citizen, and to whom the documentation must be presented. (for that matter any candidate for POTUS of VPOTUS).
Sounds like a good project for the next 4 years. (and I'd include even incumbents in that). The matter needs to be clarified, and while many here, myself included are hoping the SCOTUS will step in and do so, we cannot rely on that in the future, nor even, sadly at this time.
I, too, have been calling for proof, but from a different source. In no other instance is the prospective employee assumed to have the qualifications for the job, sans documentation, and the employer burdened to prove otherwise. The responsibility falls on the candidate for the position to document their qualifications, partly because it involves far less to do so if the candidate is qualified.
As for us being his employers, I'm not making that up, the "We, the People..." indicates who the holders of office answer to. We are the governed who consent, we are the source of power in this Constitutional Republic, we are the 'shareholders' who all have an immediate stake in our mutual prosperity or demise.
The fact, unfortunately, is that Obama has done no more or no less to prove his eligibility than any other man elected president.
I would wager less, because we have at least had school records of others who have been elected, and even those are missing for Obama.
McCain was not elected (nice parsing of words), so I suppose his willingness to divulge his documentation doesn't count. Nonetheless, when questioned, he did produce it.
I'm interested in the rule of law being upheld and if Obama is ineligible and was elected fraudulently then he needs to go and let the chips fall where they may.
Agreed.
You said — “We are the employers, the citizens of the United States.”
No, actually I would say, in light of an (1) employer, (2) employee, and (3) the “hiring process” — it’s the *American Voter* who is the employer — and furthermore — only the American voter who *did vote*.
They said — “You’re hired!”
—
And they hired him by a greater margin of votes than either Bill Clinton got or George Bush got.
It would seem that your “employer argument” is a bit lacking, since the “employer” hired Obama by a great margin...
—
If you don’t get it yet... you’re on a *employer committee* and *you’ve been outvoted*... That’s the reality of the situation, although I do know that several posters have a problem recognizing the reality of it...
[... just for the record, I didn’t vote for Obama, and I campaigned for the Republican ticket and against Obama..., there are some “crazies” out there that make up stories, so I have to qualify this... LOL...]
Not the voter, who may not pay a net of anything, but the Taxpayer.
How many of the voters who cast their ballot for Obama are net taxpayers (after refundable credits and 'entitlements', and how many who voted for McCain?
I think that alone would change your equation substantially.
You might want that definition to be the one that *actually* works — but — very simply, it doesn’t. The *real life employer* (and I mean “recognizing reality”) — is — the American Voter.
Now, maybe you want to change the situation to be *only voters who pay taxes*. I know in the past, that the only people who could vote were men and they had to own property. But, our laws have changed since then — and now that’s no longer valid.
It appears that you want to go back to those days again, and maybe so. But, that’s *not reality* (no matter what you desire or what you think “should be”). It’s simply *not*...
—
And the biggest things I’ve seen here on *this issue* is simply that those who are *fervently wanting Obama out of office* — just don’t like “reality”. But, that’s what we’ve got.
Now, the “reality” is that the “employer” that our system has said is the employer (not the previous men with property) has hired Obama, and hired him with a larger margin than either Clinton or Bush.
And the “reality” is (also) if there is a problem with the qualifications issue (per the Constitution) all someone has to do is produce documentation in a court of law and have it agreed upon by that court — and you’ve solved it.
Unfortunately, no one has been able to do that. That’s the “reality” of the situation, as it stands today.
Another reality that is quickly coming down the track is that after January 20th, only Congress will be able to remove Obama from office (through the Impeachment process). And I don’t hold out hopes for that working out, considering how it went with Clinton.
It is the equivalent of letting the bums on the sidewalk do the hiring for the business inside.
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.