Posted on 12/15/2008 8:10:50 AM PST by STARWISE
The Supreme Court orders denied Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz application for staying the election as well as requesting that the Court would grant an injunction disallowing the Electoral College to hold its vote today until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be finally determined:
________________________
08A469
WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed
to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
________________________
CitizenWells’ letter to the Electoral College
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/citizen-wells-letter-to-electors-electoral-college-uphold-us-constitution-december-15-2008-electors-vote-obama-is-not-eligible-demand-proof-2008-election-election-laws-political-party-pledges/
presents the next potential opportunity along the process of attempting to inform the nation about Barack Obama’s seeming ineligibility to serve in the office of the President.
Also, I have my thoughts on the next steps in this process.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
State-based initiatives for electoral reform can be found here.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1909
Naturally, this posting will be updated as circumstances warrant.
Update: CitizenWells isn’t happy about this decision at all. Read up on what he’s doing about it.
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/wrotnowski-v-bysiewicz-us-supreme-court-december-15-2008-justices-decide-cort-wrotnowski-versus-connecticut-secretary-of-state-bysiewicz-writ-of-mandamus-obama-not-eligible-stay-denied/
Update: InvestigatingObama’s question may be “asked and answered:” Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote?
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-judicial-review-allowed-only-after.html
We still have a shot. Several actually! :-)
Here’s the problem, as I see it.
There have been several SCOTUS rulings on Citizenship in which the SCOTUS has blurred the lines. In one case, Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) in particular, the SCOTUS used the term “Natural Born” to describe the Citizenship of a person who was born here-yet her parents were Swedish, but Naturalized U.S. Citizens. Her parents had taken her back to Sweden during her minor years and reaffirmed their allegiance to Sweden.
The argument centered around these Satutes (but they also cited others)...
1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
She won her Natural Citizenship rights back. In fact, the Court rules that she was a dual Citizen of both. And this case has served to win arguments in lower cases on both sides of the issue. IOW, it is vague and easily misunderstood and applied.
0bama will argue using this case, IF it ever goes to Court. And he’ll argue the principle of greater harm. And, he’ll win. The Court is too weak to clarify the earlier case and decide based on factual, Constitutional merit.
That’s why it needed to be done BEFORE the elections.
Sadly, I have to agree with her on that.
I have emailed every outgoing Republican Senator and Representative and laid the case out for them. I begged them to challenge the Electors. After all, I posed, what have you got to lose at this point?
Not. One. Reply.
YOu said — “We still have a shot. Several actually! :-)”
Well, a “shot” may be right — but the “results” of the shot — is more or less — what I’m talking about. And that *result* (of the shot) is going to be the same with all these people and agencies that I’ve mentioned, wanting to do nothing about it.
I know there’s a shot — but that’s not the problem. The problem is all the people and agencies wanting nothing to do with it. You can take “shots” all day long — like that — and get nowhere...
Which isn't correct. Obama isn't even president-elect yet. These 2 cases were about states vetting candidates. It's a state issue and not an Obama BC issue. We need a BC challenge.
You misunderstand my gibberish. LOL
If it had been done on the State or party level, there would be no court, or if he sued, it would not have been decided before the elections and he would not have been on the ballot.
If, if, if. If he had been vetted, he would have lost. LOL
The Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases were not about a BC. They were about states vetting candidates. They were about stopping the EC from voting before using Constitutional remedies. The SCOTUS didn’t go for it. Did you read what Judge Alsup said?
As I recall, the governing document, the Constitution, does not set out any role or participation on the part of the current POTUS on the future incoming administration.]
Three branches.
Oh yeah. This should have been done long before the election. This may spur legislation about vetting qualifications. There was a Repub that offered a state bill this week but my leaking head has forgotten what state.
You said — “As I recall, the governing document, the Constitution, does not set out any role or participation on the part of the current POTUS on the future incoming administration.”
And there you go..., *no one* see themselves in “any participation” for enforcing the Constitution...
And that’s why nothing is going to happen with the birth certificate issue with the Constitution. Everyone that I’ve mentioned wants nothing to do with it, even if they could have something to do with it...
You said — “The Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases were not about a BC. They were about states vetting candidates. They were about stopping the EC from voting before using Constitutional remedies. The SCOTUS didn’t go for it. Did you read what Judge Alsup said?”
Yep, I read it — but what you’re ignoring is it’s about the *same issue* — which is that Obama is not qualified to serve as President of the United States. It’s just a different legal methodology for the *same purpose*... LOL...
Some people get too tangled up in the small details to recognize that it’s about Obama not being qualified to serve as President of the United States...
Nope. They didn't sue Obama. They sued their states Sec of State for not doing their job. Eligibility was a side issue. The cases were about candidates being vetted and whose job that is.
Some people get too tangled up in the small details to recognize that it’s about Obama not being qualified to serve as President of the United States...
Donofrio's case was about McCain and Calero also. His case was totally on state vetting process.
Obama isn't even the president elect yet which may hinder the SC since there are Constitutional remedies. Look, if you want to surrender before failure happens, go ahead.
You said — “Obama isn’t even the president elect yet which may hinder the SC since there are Constitutional remedies. Look, if you want to surrender before failure happens, go ahead.”
First of all, it’s not *me* surrendering that anyone has to be concerned about. I don’t vet anyone. I don’t decide the court cases, I don’t have public office in which I swear to defend the Constitution, I’m not running for office where I have to defend the Constitution (as part of my duties...).
Nope, the people you have to be concerned about surrendering are Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, the Republican Party, our own news media (that is conservative), the FBI, the Supreme Court and on down the list... LOL...
They are the ones you have to be concerned about surrendering.
—
AND..., no matter “which legal route” you take — these are *all* about Obama — in the end (i.e., disqualifying him as President of the United States). If they think they can “get in the back door” and do it, then they will do that...
The democrat criminal enterprise control of the Congress will prevent any Constitutional crisis from arising ... the Constitution is no longer THE enforcement contract so the democrats can sidestep it at their discretion. And the Pubbies lack the testosterone to oppose the bastards because ‘the media might paint them in a bad light.’ We The People are serfs of the federal government as controlled and run by the democrat party criminal enterprise; We The Peoiple are no longer the sovereigns of a Constitutional Republic.
FYI another Sec of State suit, in case you hadn’t seen it yet
Broe v. Reed
Washington State Supreme Court
Cause No. 8-2-473-8
Summary Of Arguments: http://decalogosintl.org/?p=65#more-65
date set for jan 8 2009: http://decalogosintl.org/?p=75
The internet fuels the fires. Silence on our part would be death to this issue.
no matter “which legal route” you take — these are *all* about Obama
The 2 cases that were denied were not directly about Obamas BC. IF SCOTUS had taken it, the only thing that would have had to be discussed was the Sec of States doing their job. SCOTUS would have had no reason for demanding Obama's BC. The cases were mainly about the vetting process. If they would not have demanded Calero's and McCain's, they would not have demanded Obama's. We need a straightforward BC case.
Thanks for the ping!
You said — “The 2 cases that were denied were not directly about Obamas BC.”
You’ll notice that I said they are *about Obama*... LOL... That’s the *entire motive* for the entire thing... :-)
If you can’t see that, then I can’t say anything more about it.
The matter is that people don’t think Obama is qualified, under the terms of the Constitution, to be President of the United States. Now, whether one takes one legal route or another legal route — it doesn’t matter — because all the legal routes are motivated by the fact that they all want Obama disqualified from being President of the United States. Take your pick as to which one will work... LOL...
What I’m saying is that *none of them* will work.... And that’s the problem because no one wants to do anything about this Obama situation and him being qualified, under the Constitution, to be President of the United States.
In the end, Obama will still be President of the United States, and all these other people and lawsuits and “etc.” — will only generate *something* for the future — long after Obama is gone. It won’t do anything to Obama.
However, if they do something — in the long run — long after Obama is gone from his terms in office, then I guess it’s good in the end.
Expect to see some results in about 5 or 10 years... (in that regard...).
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.