Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did SCOTUS Deny Cert. On The Birth Certificate Case?
The Patriot Room ^ | December 5, 2008 | Bill Dupray

Posted on 12/05/2008 4:48:05 PM PST by Bill Dupray

Leo Denofrio notes that the Court today issued a Miscellaneous Order granting certiorari on at least two cases: Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. He thinks this is a bad sign, but notes that the full list will be out on Monday.

More . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at patriotroom.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; donofrio; enoughalready; getalife; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamatruthfile; supremecourt; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: joygrace

BTTT!!!!!!! I am listen now.


21 posted on 12/05/2008 5:38:25 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ..
Ping!
22 posted on 12/05/2008 5:39:00 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray; SunkenCiv; Beckwith; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; ...

Thank you, SunkenCiv. Without your ping, I would have missed this article.

Ping.


23 posted on 12/05/2008 5:45:26 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
IMO the SCOTUS is not going to release any paper work on ANY part of this issue until they have heard and researched all aspects of all cases.....

They want to get it right. It will be used as much as precedence as the Very Constitution is quoted.....It is a historical finding, that must be done correctly.....after much thought and research....

They have just laid the foundation and we are expecting to see the finished spire....

Patience, Lord, patience....but hurry!

24 posted on 12/05/2008 5:56:32 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: i_dont_chat

“There are people out there who know the truth — and the truth will come out.”

You bet your backside there are folks in the know!! My bet is PUTIN,CHAVEZ,IMMANUTJOB, CHINA and every enemy of the United States knows the truth and are waiting with baited breath to blackmail our POTUS ELECT.


25 posted on 12/05/2008 5:56:55 PM PST by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative
Email received from Barton (after the election)

Thank you for contacting me regarding Barack Obama's citizenship status.

There are two requirements to become President of the United States: you must be 35 and a natural born U.S. Citizen. Many people have argued, based on immigration law relating to the transfer of citizenship from either parent when born off of U.S. soil, that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for president. However, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Though those born in U.S. territories are automatically considered citizens, Hawaii became a state in 1959. The arguments against Obama's citizenship based on his parents' status are moot, since being born on American soil automatically makes Senator Obama a U.S. citizen.

Thank you again for contacting my office. It is honor to serve as your Congressman for the 6th district of Texas. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton, Member of Congress

Same old BS. And I voted for you.

This was received after the election. I wrote it way before.

You are no longer my Congressman. *&^$#@@$%

26 posted on 12/05/2008 6:00:40 PM PST by TribalPrincess2U (Dirty Dems at their best is always the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

Write back and ask what proof he has that Obama was born on US soil.


27 posted on 12/05/2008 6:03:44 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: joygrace

I just sent 50 bucks to Laurie, never heard of her before, thanks for the link, as far as Rush goes, he can stick his steaks where the sun doesn’t shine.


28 posted on 12/05/2008 6:04:37 PM PST by OBXWanderer (www.dontvoterino.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U; All
Then CongressCritter Barton will be looking for a job in 2010. Fair enough?
29 posted on 12/05/2008 6:06:56 PM PST by LiberConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."
30 posted on 12/05/2008 6:07:34 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bill Dupray
My hope is they take the case and toss the election.

I am not sure about this. But it seems to me that if the SCOTUS declares any of the Presidential candidates Constitutionally ineligible it would not toss the election. It would only mean the Electors could not elect that man President. In other words, determining Obama ineligible would merely free "his" Electors to elect another.

This was how the Constitution was originally written and I believe is still written. The Constitution has no provisions for political parties and binding by the States of Electors to vote for a particular candidate has always been of dubious Constitutionality (in my estimation).

Food for thought.

31 posted on 12/05/2008 6:10:52 PM PST by DakotaGator (God Save the Republic! And keep your powder dry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dware

Then IGNORE IT. How frickin easy is that? You don’t have to worry your mind one more cotton picking second. You can go about discussing Obama’s cabinet and Pelosi’s Christmas statement.


32 posted on 12/05/2008 6:11:08 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
About all we can do now is wait till Monday,,,

O’Bammy the Basturd can spend the weekend with his “TIC”,,,

I just hope I don't get Trampled !!!

Gun Show for me tomorrow...;0)

33 posted on 12/05/2008 6:11:15 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

He would say the same thing. Their canned response.


34 posted on 12/05/2008 6:13:20 PM PST by TribalPrincess2U (Dirty Dems at their best is always the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

I hope so. I won’t help him.


35 posted on 12/05/2008 6:14:05 PM PST by TribalPrincess2U (Dirty Dems at their best is always the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

Write him back and inform him that there are three requirements not two.

* be a natural born citizen of the united States
* be at least 35 years old
* have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years

Then ask him if he is smarter than a fifth-grader.


36 posted on 12/05/2008 6:14:10 PM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
With Terrorists trying to infiltrate and bring us down..now is the time to define what is a native citizen, what is a natural born citizen...and just who is eligible to run for office.

From Wikipedia:


The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.

37 posted on 12/05/2008 6:19:56 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U; All

Joe Barton, US Congress. Toast in 2010. We might start something right here and right now.


38 posted on 12/05/2008 6:20:31 PM PST by LiberConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

He probably would but I love poking them.


39 posted on 12/05/2008 6:21:04 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Love it!


40 posted on 12/05/2008 6:21:36 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson