Posted on 01/01/2009 1:28:43 PM PST by Kevmo
Most of us do not have the confidence in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) to cleanly uphold the constitution and declare Obama ineligible. This isn't because of a conspiracy, it's because they fear race riots and political consequences. The fact that they subsume to this fear is a direct affront to their original JOB, which is to uphold the constitution without political calculus. That's why we give them lifetime employment.
What we should explore here are the various ways that the SCOTUS might be Solomonic in their decision and split the baby by allowing zer0bama to keep his presidencey but closing the loophole for anyone else in the future.
One way that I thought they might do it was that they might instruct the electoral college on his failure to produce proof of eligibility, like a judge instructing a jury before they make a decision. That way the SCOTUS could claim to have done their job but the Electoral College didn't do theirs. But it did not go down that way.
Here’s one scenario we discussed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2152733/posts?page=86#86
To: 21stCenturyFreeThinker
It would be a hard case to make that the authors of the 20th meant to have the courts resolve the case of only the president-elect not qualifying but for Congress to resolve the case of neither the president-elect or the vp-elect qualifying.
***That’s true enough. There are a dozen places where the SCOTUS can hang their hats if they want to punt on this issue, and this is one of them. I’ve been saying all along that the most likely outcome is a split-the-baby decision. But that doesn’t make it right. Nor constitutional. If there’s a constitutional requirement that the president be qualified but no constitutional provision for establishing it, that’s exactly the kind of thing the SCOTUS was set up for. The language is relatively plain when it comes to natural born, age, and other requirements for the pres.
86 posted on Friday, December 26, 2008 8:54:21 PM by Kevmo ( It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Who cares. Yellowstone is going to blow, and none of this will matter. We’re doomed. DOOMED!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2143396/posts?page=648#648
To: hoosiermama
Yes, but on the other hand because they are perfectionist-careerist types, the last thing they want is to be known for inciting nationwide riots and unrest. So they’ll very carefully leave a wide berth for Bambi to slither through while somehow addressing the issue for all time. At least that’s my prediction.
648 posted on Friday, December 05, 2008 1:08:07 PM by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Think of the “nerdiest” kid in your class at school.....The nine yearold that has a science fair project even the judges don’t get....Or the Kid that plays and know all about the classic musicians...
Put a Constitution in front of them, a law degree in their pocket add a huge ego and multiply it by nine,= SCOTUS!
It’s their chance to MAKE history! They’ll do it right! Bells, whistles, etc. etc. Just like that outstanding science fair project or perfectly played concerto.
If he isn’t natural born, throw him out of the office elect and let us handle any disturbances that might start up. I think that most Americans feel that things have tilted in the wrong direction for far too long and it’s destroting our wealth and political direction. Since we’re still a federal democracy, numbers rule and the SC must recognize this. Suspend posse comitatus for awhile to restore America to its greatness.
But, unfortunately, that nerdy kid likes to be accepted at all the cool Washington DC cocktail parties. And half of those kids were diehard libtard nerds, not necessarily constitutionalist nerds.
How is that a “split the baby” decision?
Our first half-black, illegal alien, unconstitutionally taking office president coinciding with the biggest economy collapse since the great depression, none of that is coincidence, IMO.
Somebody out there can connect these dots, meanwhile, I'll just sit here with my tin foil hat on.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT a baby, it is a document, and you DON'T split that!!!
SCOTUS isn't going to touch this. They shouldn't, either.
What we should explore here are the various ways that the SCOTUS might be Solomonic in their decision and split the baby by allowing zer0bama to keep his presidencey but closing the loophole for anyone else in the future.
We should be working on legislation, probably at the state level, to make certain that candidates are qualified before their names appear on the ballot. This also wouldn't keep The One out of office for this term, but it done well, and if he truly is hiding something and doesn't have proof that he's qualified for the office, he won't be on the ballot for a second term.
I'm really not comfortable with SCOTUS or any other court legislating some kind of requirement for a birth certificate out of thin air. Obama has provided the same proof of his eligibility that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have provided. He said he was qualified, his party says he's qualified, and he won the election. It's over, unless you find an activist judge who wants to write new laws after the fact.
Well, there are two ways that I can think of, but it wouldn’t even involve the Supreme Court of the United States. I know you were talking about what the Supreme Court could do, but I really don’t have much control over that — as I do have over the other two ways that I’m thinking about.
Berg’s case states that there are not any laws on the books to make sure that Obama (or anyone else) prove that they are qualified — even though the Constitution states the qualifications that one must have.
So, the two ways to deal with this is by an Amendment to the Constitution in specifying a methodology by which this can be done.
The other way is to make state laws instructing the Secretary of State to require specific proof from a candidate or else they cannot be placed on the ballot.
Of those two ways, the state laws are quicker to get done — and they don’t require the entire country to act on it — just a few states, by themselves.
So, I think the best route is by state law and make sure we’ve got enough states to deny Obama any future election (by denying Electoral College votes, i.e., not enough to win an election)...
That would be something that “we the people” could do through our own states and our own local legislators...
I wish I had your confidence. If previous SCOTUS history is to be a guide, they only show courage over left wing issues.
Listen,
***I tried to, but your post did not address the possibilities of the SCOTUS splitting the baby.
Absolutely agree!!! Plus that will set a precedent and a wide open door to all the next one who will be what...sons of Bin Laden? Don’t you think they will not fight using that precedent?
And why in the wolrd the Constitution should allow “This one” and not the next one?
This the MOST ridiculous “deal” I’ve ever heard!
Berg’s case states that there are not any laws on the books to make sure that Obama (or anyone else) prove that they are qualified — even though the Constitution states the qualifications that one must have.
***There is a third way, which is the traditional way that SCOTUS has operated: for them to interpret the constitutionality of an issue. They assumed this responsibility when they issued Marbury v Madison, even though final constitutionality wasn’t really spelled out. The fact that there’s a hole in our constitution that zer0bama drove a truck right through is prima facie evidence that they need to do their job.
That would be something that “we the people” could do through our own states and our own local legislators...
***That is something already happening, such as in Oklahoma. In the meantime there is a constitutional crisis going on for THIS cycle and we need to explore what we can do NOW.
Thank you so much for your enlightening information.
I did address it by outlining how appealing payoffs might be because of the "completely coincidental" economic crisis. You need me to draw some stick figures too? Or you posted this thread so you get to dictate what people post?
SCOTUS isn’t going to touch this. They shouldn’t, either.
***Why? It’s their job.
I’m really not comfortable with SCOTUS or any other court legislating some kind of requirement for a birth certificate out of thin air.
***Why is that? Eligibility is a requirement in the constitution. The standard procedure for any citizen is to prove his eligibility when he applies for a job. This “legislating out of thin air” didn’t just come from nowhere. It applies to all of us. If you are uncomfortable with that, it begs the question of why? Why would zer0bama or anyone else be above a requirement that you and I have to meet several times in our lives?
Obama has provided the same proof of his eligibility that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have provided.
***And the evidence he provided has been shown to be forged.
He said he was qualified, his party says he’s qualified, and he won the election.
***Examine the 20th amendment. The PE can FAIL to QUALIFY. That means it can happen AFTER the party selects the guy, AFTER the vote, AFTER the electoral college, and all those results are SUBORDINATE to QUALIFICATION.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,779+ views
Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution
It’s over, unless you find an activist judge who wants to write new laws after the fact.
***You’re slipping into obamanoid talking points here. Answer my questions and you might be able to pull yourself off the list of CoLB trolls that lj is probably putting you on.
Maybe you need to draw stick figures because I do not understand your point.
This the MOST ridiculous “deal” I’ve ever heard!
***Then what would you do if the SCOTUS came out with it?
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.