I thought I just saw in the paper a day or two ago that they asked Senator Byrd to step down??
So courts are saying that individual citizens have no standing. In Seattle, the court ruled that the Secretary of Washington State is not responsible for confirming eligibility. The FEC claims it has no responsibility or obligation to do so. The DNC says it cannot be forced to verify his eligibility. Now the electoral college poobahs say its not for them to check out.
WTF is going on here???
What are the chances that a senator and a representative would even consider bringing it up? No reply necessary.
Byrd stepped down from his senate seat
Altho the possibilities of this monster being an illegal alien are apparently strong, is this still an issue, or are we going to let a foreign national take over our government?
Is there any meat on this bone or is this wishful thinking, you know, like indicting Hillary for obstruction of justice, looting a murder scene, grand theft, perjury, suborning perjury, and the like?
Are the Rats going to get away with this unvetted punk taking over our government?
Thanks for posting this, Free ThinkerNY.
Ping.
This is going to be decided de facto unless someone acts. I have commented on this issue many times and made the point that I believed it needed to be addressed at the state level because elections are administered by the states.
Now here is another way to address the issue, and that is as the response suggests to get one senator and one member of the House to bring it up as an objection to one state’s electoral votes.
What is needed is a Good constitutional lawyer to take on the issue of Obama’s eligibility and figure out the best way to resolve it and either prove he is eligible, or get him disqualified.
If the elected officials of the states and elsewhere are not up to the job of doing their duty to follow the laws of this nation, then Obamanation is NOT OUR PRESIDENT!!! Talk about passing the buck. If they can’t verify, then he is NOT OUR PRESIDENT.
He can NOT represent us if he is NOT a citizen. PERIOD.
NO taxation without TRUE representation. Passive civil disobedience will be called for if this continues.
Just so thye Blacks and kids and losers don’t RIOT!
Speaking of the Electoral College ... This may be a shot in the dark but what do any Freepers think of Sarah Palin getting an electoral vote from a disenchanted Republican elector for the way she’s been treated by the McCain people? Could it happen? If it did wouldn’t she be the first ever woman to get an electoral vote? John Edwards got a vote in 2004, Lloyd Bentson got one in 1988 and Ronald Reagan received one in 1976. It’s happened before. Does anyone think that it could happen again? Just a thought here ... Heck, it’s only trivial at this point and it would look good in her run-up to the 2012 Election.
Uh, guys the President of the Senate is Dick Cheney, the Vice President. Byrd may have been President Pro Temp.
And, of course, this office petitioned has no authority in such a matter.
Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"— an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756, 104 S.Ct., at 3327; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2210, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1368-1369, n. 16, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972);1 and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra, 495 U.S., at 155, 110 S.Ct., at 1723 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be "fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43, 96 S.Ct., at 1924, 1926.
Unlike merely standing for election, the actual swearing in of a constitutionally unqualified candidate, I would think is a particularized injury to each and every citizen who granted limited powers to the government under the constitution, it is imminent, and it can be redressed by a favorable decision of the Supreme Court.
But, it will be interesting to see Scalia's take on this.
It’s above their pay grade.
We are in some sort of wide-spread collapse of social responsibility. It’s like a Dr Who episode. Only there’s no Dr. Who.
Wouldn’t an elector have status to sue to see the original birth certificate?
#
thanks LucyT.
NJ Voter Vs. Obama On “Natural Born Status” Now Pending Us Supreme Court
Democratic-Disaster.com | 11-10-2008
Posted on 11/10/2008 8:27:51 PM PST by virgin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129827/posts
Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter
re:”natural born citizen” - Before US Supreme Court
prlog.org
Posted on 11/10/2008 8:51:09 PM PST by Ballygrl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129835/posts
Mombasa Imam who confirmed Obama’s birth place arrives in the UK
African Press International (API) | November 9, 2008
Posted on 11/11/2008 1:51:09 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2129916/posts
Why is a SCOTUS clerk trying to Stop NJ Case Against Obama birth certificate?
Democrat Disaster.com | 11-11-2008 | Frantzie
Posted on 11/11/2008 8:13:23 AM PST by Frantzie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130066/posts
-last poli-ping for the day, so some humor-
The Renegade Is Loose. We Repeat, the Renegade Is Loose.
Yahoo! Buzz | November 11, 2008 | Mike Krumboltz
Posted on 11/11/2008 12:49:14 PM PST by americanophile
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130283/posts
bookmark