Posted on 09/14/2009 1:33:00 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen
During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.
Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.
Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.
California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.
Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.
“There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”
Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
You said he proved eligibility with the COLB, Chinslurp. And you’ve been saying it for months.
So which Secretary of which state was that presented to? OR was it the FEC or the electoral college that vetted him?
That’s right, Chinslurp, NO ONE vetted the marxist’s birth history to verify he was born on US soil. And no, your leftist buddies at FactCheck don’t count.
Yer actually being kinder than I rgarding the name. LOL
Yer actually being kinder than I regarding the name. LOL
Of course we notice. Why do you think he never dated, never went to prom, not a single picture of him with a girl until he married MO. No girls have ever said they dated him. NONE! He was gay and is now bisexual preferring men but needing a family go achieve his agenda.
You’re right, of course. I’m waiting for the order for discovery. Give us access to the records and we’ll prove it. All these judges who can’t be bothered by the Constitution will be proven incompetent, whether they admit it (yeah, right!) or not.
Very good point! He’s a good looking man, too. Some girl would have been interested in him.
I can’t post that here. LOL Trust me, I was tempted.
A photo of a blue dress might make a nice subtle message. *snicker*
Do you think that an order requiring discovery will be issued?
The same form was used for Kerry and Gore. The other form was done for Hawaii. I found this info on another thread...Kerry and Gore’s are posted at scribd.
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970),cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 (1970)
As our founders said, our Constitution is made for a religious and moral people, it is wholly unsuitable for any other kind --
If any proof is shown to you, your response is to shift your position further and fabricate another false argument.
Your biggest problem is your leftist worldview denies the reality of absolutes. So your own ideology prohibits you from holding a position on anything.
Although you pretend to use logic, it’s actually your worst enemy.
The same form was used for Kerry and Gore. The other form was done for Hawaii. I found this info on another thread...Kerry and Gore’s are posted at scribd.
OK, butthead, so we're back to asking what law said who was supposed to vet him? What state has a law saying their Secretary of State must check birth certificates? What law lays out when and where the Electoral College is supposed to do that? And since you have no clue as to what the FEC is tasked with doing I'll leave that part out.
The unfortunate answer is that nobody is tasked with that responsibility. No state agency, no federal agency, no individual. But it's an easy enough problem to fix. Since states decide who appears on their ballots, even for federal offices, then if only one state would pass a law requiring all candidates must present appropriate documents proving their qualifications for the office then the problem would be solved. Instead of whining about the problems as they are why aren't you advocating solving them?
It's going to happen. If not now, sometime down the road.
Noted.
For example?
Although you pretend to use logic, it’s actually your worst enemy.
And apparently logic is an unfamiliar concept with you as well.
“Which is the higher: the law that protects those that evade the Constitution or the Constitution???”
As liberals always say when opposing the second amendment: “The constitution is not a suicide pack.” Neither is case law a suicide pact.
It is dangerous for the Nation to be led by a forienger because he has divided loyalities. That is why the NBC is in the constitution.
The law says, in the Constitution, the candidate must meet 3 basic requirements. There is no higher law. And many, if not all states, repeat in their laws that the candidate must meet the Constitutional requirements to appear on the ballot. In fact, they have kicked people off ballots before, including in the 2008 election cycle for not meeting the requirements.
I am advocating passing laws requiring more than Nancy Pelosi’s signature to claim elegibility, though we aren’t even sure the version of the Nominee Declaration sent to the states did even that.
But unlike chinslurps, some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be for laws forcing SOS’s to actually do the job they are ALREADY empowered to do, but we are also in full support of exposing the marxist quisling beforehand.
You, OTOH, are an Obama chinslurp.
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.