Posted on 01/01/2009 1:28:43 PM PST by Kevmo
“How is that a “split the baby” decision?”
The baby dies.
You said — “You said that the methodology does not exist. IT DOES exist. But the SoS didn’t follow it, they didn’t do their FReeping job. That’s when the courts step in.”
I should define that further... the methodology does not exist *to the extent* that some FReepers here want it. And Berg has argued the same thing in his court documents.
The problem that you’re having is that you want the law to say *more* than it says. It simply was not specific enough to require the full extent of what many here wanted. That’s the problem.
Make Obama have to show proof when he runs again in 2012.
That way, if he fails to qualify for REELECTION, then that will taint his presidency for all history as the fraudulent president.
Once he fails to qualify for reelection, then the original COLB could be challenged as a forgery, and Obama could be charged with document fraud, as well.
-PJ
Realistically Obama needs to go under witness protection, a new face, a new life and possibly drug therapy to modify memories.
And this would be to have done for an event that would keep protests and riots at a minimum and to not have any pressure upon SCOTUS, something like an accident that leaves little or no evidence, an Eraser situation.
‘How is that a “split the baby” decision?’ The constitution clearly states that one must be natural born to be elected president. Particularly in the United States, the Marshal is used for various kinds of law enforcement officers with specialist status. They mainly protect the security of the courts and justice system.
The federal court system is served by the United States Marshal. The US Supreme Court maintains a Marshal of the Supreme Court who also controls the US Supreme Court Police, a security police service. The court knew it could clarify laws but it became apparent that they lacked enforcement. The U.S. Marshal’s office is at the disposal of the federal judicial system as the mechanism for enforcing our constitution. The court’s been tested before as in the ‘trail of tears’ and the central bank. It must be a respected coequal branch of government.
The words “Birth Certificate” appear where exactly in the United States Constitution?
***The word “ELIGIBLE” appears in the constitution, and it directly relates to the BIRTH circumstances. The constitution is the framework, the rest of the laws are built around it. Your requirement is bogus, as is the rest of your argument, because you do not understand the primary function of the constitution.
Or where in the United States Code in reference to qualifications for candidates in elections?
***Why should I chase down this rabbit hole with you, troll? It’s posted all over these CertifiGate threads. 35 years old, natural born, do your own fetching.
Sorry, only a judicial activist will fabricate that as a new law. And I’m for strict constructionists on the bench.
***Bull Feces. If you were a strict constructionist you’d understand the relationship of the constitution to the law — it’s the framework.
BTW, It’s not out of the question for Congress to raise the issue before officially counting the electoral votes and declaring a winner. That is where people should be focusing their efforts.
***If you’re such a strict constructionist, how is it that the 20th amendment escapes your notice, where the focus of effor for qualification is AFTER the electoral votes are counted?
With the current makeup of the Congress, it’s unlikely, but that’s the appropriate forum for this discussion.
***Wrong again, if that were so the SCOTUS would simply say that in Donofrio v Wells.
The only way the courts need to be involved is if someone has very strong proof, preferably from at least two sources, that Obama isn’t qualified.
***It’s Obama’s burden to prove he is qualified. The 20th amendment doesn’t say, “if the people fail to qualify the PE”, it says if the PE fails to qualify. For a strict constructionist, you sure add a lot of bull feces to the constitution.
There’s no law requiring Obama or anyone else to provide any documentation.
***The constitution says he must be eligible, and directly talks about the circumstances of his birth that he must be natural born. How do you “provide documentation” when it is your duty to prove eligibility? You hand over your BC and whatever documents you have. It’s a simple process.
As I said above, I do support new laws to clear up the qualifications before putting a candidate’s name on the ballot. But I want these laws debated and enacted by legislators, not by judges.
***I agree that we need such new laws, and the process is already starting for 2012. But the people need relief for this egregious constitutional violation now, which is one of the purposes for courts.
Again, what “requirement” are you referring to? Where is this law that specifically says “Birth Certificate” or “Certificate of Live Birth” or whatever document you think is a “requirement”?
***Asked & answered in prior post. If you ask again, it will be proof of your desire to be a troll.
And again, did Reagan provide these documents and meet the “requirement?” Did George W. Bush provide the documents to meet this “requirement?”
***If there were 5 concurrent lawsuits against either of them in the SCOTUS while they were PE, they would have produced them without fanfare. McCain did. If you want a job, do you produce documentation or do you just demand they give you the job and take your word?
Provide evidence that either of these two Presidents actually presented similar documents to prove their qualifications. I’m not asking whether you trust them when they said they were qualified.
***No. Your requirement for such evidence is proof positive that you are simply acting as a troll.
BTW, I think Obama made a mistake by providing anything. I’m not sure why he provided the questionable documents and images that have appeared on the web.
***Even in your own words, the evidence provided was questionable.
What I’m saying is that if he says he’s qualified, and his party says he’s qualified, he’s as qualified as anyone else who has ever held the office of the President of the United States.
***Nope. Again back to the 20th amendment. You really, really need to look it up and read that one line. What you are saying is simply wrong on the face of it. Reexamine that, let us know how it turns out. If you are not a troll, you’ll be honest with yourself and admit that what you write here is pure provocation, especially considering that this is a constituionalist website.
Up until now, that’s been “good enough,” and changing the requirements is a job for the Legislative branch, not the courts.
***That’s a logical fallacy, basically “we’ve always done it this way”. When the legislative branch doesn’t do its job properly, the courts step in. It is their job.
Kevmo wrote:
And where again does it say in the 20th amendment that it’s the place of the courts to evaluate qualifications?
***So you’ve already been placed on notice about the 20th amendment but you’re sticking to your obamanoid troll guns. Where does it say anywhere that the SCOTUS are supposed to rule on constitutionality, such as the very first case, Marbury v Madison? You’ll find your answer there.
Wouldn’t this be better handled either by the Electoral College? Or by the Congress?
***You just wanna skip right on past that 20th amendment, don’t you? The qualification process takes place AFTER the EC votes. You already know this. As far as would or wouldn’t, that’s up to the various parties themselves. It’s an obvious constitutional issue and obviously needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS.
Personally, I think the question is probably best handled by the Congress when they are tallying the Electoral Votes and determining the winner of the Election?
***Personally, I don’t. If the constitution says otherwise, I’ll submit to that.
If there’s a question of qualifications, bring it up then, and if an investigation determines the candidate is ineligible, don’t count votes for that candidate. There’s still time to handle this in the Congress.
***My understanding is that it can be quickly disposed of by a simple majority vote in congress, which means the democrats will take it as an opportunity to use the constitution as toilet paper. If you honestly think this is the best way to handle this issue, God help you. I have NO confidence in democrats to uphold the constitution.
Any judge who can find “Birth Certificate” in the 20th amendment can find much worse things in other parts of the Constitution?
***Get it straight in your head, troll: the constitution is the framework, the rest of the laws are built around it. Your continued density on this subject is evidence of troll hood.
I’m not comfortable with that kind of judicial activism, not even if I agree there’s a need for the law. The courts aren’t where you go to get new laws made.
***SCOTUS intervenes all the time when there is a constitutional issue at stake. That is their job. If you’re not comfortable with that, WTF are you doing on this constitutionalist website discussing this constitutional issue? The answer is that you are here to disrupt, provoke, and dismay: you are a troll.
First of all, it isn't "out of thin air," as the natural-born requirement is clearly in the Constitution, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to render a decision on its interpretation.
That said, the Court could many things, including just issuing an opinion that the Congress define "natural born" for future elections, and a process for future candidates to follow to prove qualifications.
What they probably will not do is overturn an election. However, they could still set in motion remedies for future elections, and if Obama fails to qualify for 2012, then that will taint his presidency for posterity.
Given that possibility, I would suspect that a Democrat-controlled Congress wouldn't dare do anything that might affect Obama's chances in 2012, so nothing will be done legislatively at the federal level.
So, any changes for future elections will have to be at the state level.
-PJ
You said — “Make Obama have to show proof when he runs again in 2012.”
This is where we’ll have to get laws passed in the states to make this so. Otherwise, we’re under the same laws we have now. Berg has argued in his case that we do not have the laws necessary to have prevented Obama from being elected and becoming President. That’s his “rationale” for asking the court to “step in” and do something about it.
So, the “next time around” — we’re gonna have to get some *very specific laws* about the *exact process* for vetting a candidate.
Thank you for at least addressing the simple question. I’m surprised so many freepers find it so difficult to do.
The problem with that scenario from the SCOTUS perspective is they would be seen to have punted when it was their job... rightfully so.
You said — “Realistically Obama needs to go under witness protection, a new face, a new life and possibly drug therapy to modify memories.”
LOL... we could go back to the series Babylon 5 and see how they did their “mind wipes” and do the same... :-)
Interesting scenario, thanks for posting it. I suppose the lower courts would take the issue seriously and get to it rather quickly as long as Obama is detained from taking office. If the SCOTUS allows him to take the reins, it would be a completely useless ruling.
Star Traveler...
I’ve read you line of thinking for some time now and, while intellectually stimulating, You Lack Guts!
I agree with your assertion that state laws need to be developed to prevent this cluster$$$k we are now experiencing. However, future efforts don’t mitigate the immediate travesty. And there are some of us that believe the immediate will become a much larger future communist mess than can be rationally handled. Therefore best to stop the problem now.
Others:
The SC judges are not where they are cause they’re stupid.
There is some tactical positioning going on in that select members of the SC are allowing events to proceed according to constitutional requirements. They won’t get active (and shouldn’t) until congress has completed it’s job under existing laws. It’s not SCOTUS’s job to develop legislation. It is their job to interpret what has come before and relate it to the current problem. To that end,
while we may all agree that state elegibility verification is sorely pathetic, SCOTUS’s job is to address the 3 POTUS requirements.
I think SCOTUS is doing what it has to do in a reasonably timely manner given circumstances. If ya’ll want to dump on the really guilty parties, hunt down Dean, Pelosi, and Reid for their crimes. It’s their party that put this clown up(even over the Hildabeast) and are mum on the whole issue. They scammed their own party and the results - riots or whatever-should be on their heads. But you don’t hear anything from them do you?
Hillary and the repubs all have reasons for not getting involved. I personally believe most repubs are just plain gutless and trough-fed. Hillary is more like a ninja in waiting.
I've been a player on this topic since the earliest posts from June, so you're welcome.
The Supreme Court has punted on the issue of federal elections ever since Bush v. Gore in 2000. That's why the declined to hear the NJ case regarding swapping Lautenberg for Torricelli, and that's why they will punt now.
Even in declining to hear a case, or ruling against, they still could issue opinions either with the majority or in dissent, as a group or individually.
In their opinions, they could ask the Congress to formalize a process for demonstrating qualifications, but they cannot make Congress do so. At the most extreme, they could make an interpretation and say that it is until Congress changes it through legislation.
-PJ
I realize that it is 1 January, but I have to tell you that you should be named “FR.com poster of the year.”
I have learned a lot from this thread because of your posts. I always keep a copy of the Constitution close to me. I do not understand why I could not see what is so obvious before you enunciated (for lack of a better word) here.
Thanks for your posts here.
Well..., one thing to keep in mind, especially with a lot of conservatives, is that they have not wanted (in the past) for courts to go *beyond* the law and stick, very clearly, to the *letter of the law* and not create new law out of existing law.
***The SCOTUS wouldn’t be going beyond the law in this case. It’s plainly spelled out as eligibility requirements for the office.
Now, where there does exist specified “qualifications” for a candidate to meet, the real question is did the Secretaries of State *do enough* to vet the candidate. Berg says that they did what the law required, because it didn’t require much and thus, it allowed Obama to “get through”.
***Donofrio goes directly to this when he points out the 3rd person on the ballot (Calero?) was not even a citizen. When the SoS doesn’t “do enough”, when they simply do not do their job, the courts’ job is to step in.
Now, if that is so —
***That isn’t so; therefore the rest of your argument is based upon fallacious reasoning.
I know the “common sense” of it, but law is not common sense, necessarily — along with the fact that conservatives don’t want the courts to go beyond *exactly* what the law specifies — and *no more*...
***Nonsense. Conservatives aren’t hanging their hats on activism of judges in this case, they are simply asking the courts to do their job and *no more*.
Conservatives want that to be a “legislative function” that must be voted on by our representatives and not something a court creates out of thin air (again, not the “qualifications” but the “methodology”).
***This entire argument is a false construct. Conservatives think this way... and therefore since this isn’t following that template, it ain’t conservative. Bull Feces. Conservatives uphold the constitution. The constituion says the Pres must be qualified. Conservatives regularly have to prove their own qualifications for various jobs they apply for, so the methodology is obviously in place.
—
You then said — “In other words, they didn’t do their jobs.”
They didn’t do a sufficient job to the last detail, but Berg is saying that they did what was required, basically — in that he is saying that there are no laws that could have pertained to Obama — and thus he’s asking that the court step in — in this regard.
***Your argument is getting to such a fine point of nonsense that it’s not even making any sense. It’s a straight forward constituional requirement that the Pres be qualified. Whether it’s Berg or Donofrio or Keyes or one of the 14 other cases that gets this issue straightened out, that’s fine with me. I’m not going to dive into the finer points of what Berg is arguing because there are 14 other cases arguing the basic points all too clearly.
So, you can’t blame the Secretaries of State —
***Sure I do
on the one hand — and them make an argument in your court case that there are no laws that would have applied to Obama.... That’s arguing out of both sides of one’s mouth at the same time...
***Nonsense. The constituion is in place, the eligibility clause is clear and the SoS certifies that they find the guy eligible.
—
You said — “They had plenty. Look at the evidence produced just in Berg v Obama.” Well, remember, that the case was not heard and the evidence was not judged.
***NOT YET.
The case (for Berg) that is before the court is not on the evidence, but rather, on whether he has standing.
***You are really getting way too far into the finer points of Berg’s argument. What does Berg have in common with 16 other lawsuits winding their way through court? That zer0bama has not produced proof of eligibility. For $12, he could take care of that and we could all go onto some other issue.
Berg may find, if he does get back to that lower court, that those things that he’s provided may be “thrown out” as lacking in proper evidence.
***And he may also find that if 6 billion people jump up and down at the same time, the earth will tilt on its axis. Such arguments from the future hold no weight.
That’s what we don’t have, at this time — any court that has *verified* any evidence as worthy or valid. And that’s why it’s still questionable...
***At this point you’re just going around in circles, which appears to be your purpose.
—
And lastly you were saying — “And I think it’s quicker and easier for SCOTUS to do their FReeping job, what we pay them for and why they get lifetime employment. If they break the social contract in this republic, they risk more than a few riots in the streets.”
Well, the Supreme Court (at least in Berg’s case) will — first — have to decide whether to even “hear” his case. After they decide that, and if they do decide to “hear” it, then they will have to decide if Berg has “standing” or not.
***POTO award. POTO = Pointing Out The Obvious.
They may say he does not have standing. Then again, if they do say he has “standing” — then — the Supreme Court will have done its job, because that’s the job that Berg brought before them.
***More POTO.
At that point, Berg would have to go back to the lower court, and all that evidence would have to be determined as to whether it was valid or not or meets whatever requirements that the court wishes to put on that evidence. After that is done, then we can see what happens next...
***POTO, POTO, POTO....
I think SCOTUS is doing what it has to do in a reasonably timely manner given circumstances.
***Do you think SCOTUS might bail because of fear of race riots, that kind of thing? If so, they could be doing more in this set of circumstances by starting to telegraph to the political establishments that there is a legitimate constitutional crisis going on.
Post #35 essentially goes into the same thing. He’s a different poster but has a good handle on it. I go along with what he’s saying...
“FR.com poster of the year.”
***The only chance I would have is if the vote were today, hah hah! There’s 364 more days left for all them alpha freepers to run circles around me.
Let me ask you a question. If the constituion clearly states a certain requirement (like, soldiers can’t force you to put them up for the night) but there are not that many laws pertaining to it, does that mean the requirement is higher in priority or the laws that don’t exist yet?
I’ll just answer your one part to me...
You said — “I’ve read you line of thinking for some time now and, while intellectually stimulating, You Lack Guts!”
Just don’t figure it does any good beating one’s head against a brick wall, when there is a way to walk around it and get things done... :-)
On the other hand, if there were a good shot, then it would be a different story. I thought, prior to the election, that there was a good shot — but, apparently not enough other people agreed with me. So, I lost...
—
And then you said — “I agree with your assertion that state laws need to be developed to prevent this cluster$$$k we are now experiencing. However, future efforts don’t mitigate the immediate travesty. And there are some of us that believe the immediate will become a much larger future communist mess than can be rationally handled. Therefore best to stop the problem now.”
Note that Oklahoma has just done that, in submitting a law (legislature is not in session yet, though). So, if you’re right — then the problem will be solved before the new state law has any effect. BUT, I seriously doubt that...
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.