So do I.....Guess that’s why it took 3 stabs at it, over a few days, to get it done....Roberts kept choking on the words, don’t blame him at all........LOLOLOLOL
It was twice not three times and yeah, Roberts was nervous time number one swearing in his first President. Hopefully he’ll have many more presidents to swear in.
“The USSC is not a Trier of Fact. It is a Judicial Review Court. There is no wonder at their not granting a Writ of Certiorari in these 7 cases. Trying to go that route dooms it from the git go, no matter what the issue....... To do so would have them stepping outside of their Constitutionaly mandated role, and set a dangerous prescedent of allowing suits being filed directly to the USSC, effectively bypassing lower courts. Please, you can think of better arguments than this can’t you?”
Yes, I know the proper judicial function of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fact that the US Supreme Court has had seven opportunities to find relevant constitutional questions in petitions for Writs of Certiorari and has not accepted any of those suits on appeal is very telling.
“Yes, but you are also suggesting that all suits dismissed are frivolous.....not so, your logic is severely lacking.....cases can, and are, thrown out for a variety of other reasons.....including judicial cowardice which was my point backed up by Justice Thomas’ statement in the first place...see below”
No, I am not suggesting that all lawsuits that are dismissed are frivolous. But when judges and justices slap down plaintiffs as badly as some of the “birther” plaintiffs and their attorneys have been slapped down, some degree of frivolousness is obvious. In Berg v Obama, the federal district court judge (Barclay Surrick) called the suit “frivolous.” When a former conservative Republican state legislator in Georgia becomes a federal judge and imposes $20,000 in sanctions against Orly Taitz, that also indicates frivolousness as well as incompetence.
When a Reagan appointed judge calls the quest to disprove Obama as natural born “tilting at windmills,” it says something significant to rational people.
“Question for youse..... Do you think that Obama’s nulification team is filing intentionally flawed suits in order to give the appearance that any questioning of Obama’s eligibility is just frivilously nuts? I know that Obama has spent near $2 million dollars up front quashing suits, I wonder how much he is spending at the back door for the nulification effort?
Play chess, not checkers.....”
No, I do not believe that “the Obama nullification team” is filing intentionally flawed suits. It is easy enough to track the background of any defendant in any lawsuit to see if they had a history of supporting Obama or liberal causes in the past.
Since Obama has hired private attorneys in only 3 of the myriad of eligibility lawsuits and none of them went further than filing a dismissal brief with the Court (there’s not been one single trial) there is no way on earth that Obama has spent anywhere near close to “2 million dollars” on legal fees related to his eligibility. You’ve fallen for an internet rumor. In any event, he raised three quarters of a billion dollars for his campaign, even 2 million spent on legal fees would be a drop in the bucket, 1/5th of 1 percent. There was a one million dollar estimate of legal fees for ALL 2008 primary and general election related legal expenses. Since Inauguration Day, your tax money and mine pays for Obama’s Department of Justice Attorneys in eligibility suits. But most the the so-called “birther suits” do not even name Obama as a defendant. For example, “Ankeney et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” “Donofrio v Wells,” “Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz,” or “Lightfoot v Bowen...on and on I could go. If you’re not even named as a defendant, you have no legal expenses.
“Yes there is! The Constitution requires that, in order to be eligible for the Office of President you must be a Natural Born Citizen.....there is few that deny that NBC means....”Born in country to 2 US citizens”...... You do recognize the Constitution as law don’t you? See the previously cited Miner v Happersett.....you might visit Perkins v Elg also.......both USSC cases where NBC is discussed/defined.”
None of the more than 50 courts that have reviewed plaintiff’s legal briefs in Obama eligibility lawsuits has been persuaded by Minor v Happersett or Perkins v Elg being precedent setting. As a matter of fact, DEFENDANTS in Obama eligibility lawsuits have also referenced those exact same decisions. Defendant attorneys in Obama eligibility lawsuits have themselves cited Perkins v Elg, Mandoli v Acheson from 1951 and US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898 as precedent rulings in their favor. But more than anything else, defendants use that word “ALL” befor the word “persons” in the 14th Amendment.
Obama is the sixth president to have a foreign born parent.”
“Yes, but with the exception of Arthur, all of them had parents that had been naturalized (ie became citizens) before the birth of their son, thereby meeting the NBC requirement for their son’s NBC status... You’ll note that although Arthur’s Irish born father eventualy was naturalized, it was not until Arthur was 14 years old..... This was the reason Arthur went to great lengths to hide/destroy documentation of his birth.... He was not an NBC..... the same as Obama and for the same reason...Obama is not a NBC).”
Arthur did not destroy any evidence. His father was a well known pastor in Vermont and the issue of where Chester A. was born (15 miles into Canada or in Vermont) was raised in the election of 1880.
“Or is your argument that because Arthur got away with it, so we should let Obama off too? Is That what you are saying?”
No, that is not what I’m saying. One more time, what I am saying is that there is no constitutional requirement that one’s parents be natural born citizens in order for a person to run for and be elected president.
The only court that has rendered an actual decision on that point with regard to Barack Hussein Obama II agreed with me and disagreed with you: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009
Let me re-state the conversation in simplfied form so you’ll understand....”So you haven’t answered the one about (who) can be President.” We’re avoiding that one.....”
Justice Thomas was being coy with his double entandre answer in an informal setting. I’m sure that is why the thrust of it went over your head.....everyone else in the room got a laugh out of it though.....LOLOLOLOLOL ( note Justice Thomas did not have a mouse in his pocket....”we” meaning the judiciary.)
Schools out! Time for you to go to bed. Wash your hands and face....brush your teeth first....”
You can try to spin Justice Thomas’ words any way you want. The question was about whether a Puerto Rico-born Congressman can ever be president and the context was possible statehood for Puerto Rico.
I like your grade school references—they seem appropriate for your level of intellect. They take me back to the 4th grade playground!
If anyone really wants to resolve the Obama eligibility issue the way to do that is through the criminal justice system not through the civil system where plaintiffs have no standing and the courts have no justiciability. The more conservative the judge or justice, the less likely she or he is to invent powers to remove a sitting president that the constitution does not grant to the judiciary.
ANY and I repeat ANY district attorney, state Attorney General or US Attorney in the nation could initiate a grand jury investigation (remember the Whitewater, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky Grand Jury investigations?). With a Grand Jury, Obama’s original vital records can be subpoenaed without his permission in accordance with Hawaii law and those original vital records can be examined by experts with testimony taken under oath.
It was twice not three times and yeah, Roberts was nervous time number one swearing in his first President. Hopefully he’ll have many more presidents to swear in.
Yes, you’re right, I plead big fingers, sloppily applied...it was 2......My observation holds true....C.J. Roberts had problems swearing Obama in, nerviousness?...I wouldn’t think that a Swearing in Cermony would phase a person of Robert’s calibre and experience, you apparently do. Conjecture on each of our parts at best.......There is still some question of whether, or not, the second privately held swearing in was flawed also....nerviousness again?.....
I think that question is moot at this point.....and I’m sure that Roberts will have no problem swearing in Gov. Palin in 2013 whatsoever...... (sorry, I couldn’t resist the plug)
The fact that the US Supreme Court has had seven opportunities to find relevant constitutional questions in petitions for Writs of Certiorari and has not accepted any of those suits on appeal is very telling.
The question of Obama’s meeting eligibility Requirements is one of historic, and precedent setting proportions. It is telling that even though many suits have been filed and dismissed, others are being contemplated or filed....If there is smoke... is there a fire?.....Given the gravity of the situation, and it’s implications in the future, I suspect that the Court(s) is being cautious in selecting a suit to hear.....there are many more in the pipeline....Time will be the final arbitrator of the question......no matter what either you, or I, say or think......
No, I do not believe that “the Obama nullification team” is filing intentionally flawed suits. It is easy enough to track the background of any defendant in any lawsuit to see if they had a history of supporting Obama or liberal causes in the past.
The “defendant” (sic, I think you meant Plantiff) is not the one that is filing, and writting the the brief... it is his/her attorney....think maybe we should look at him?
“In Berg v Obama, the federal district court judge (Barclay Surrick) called the suit “frivolous......”
Phil Berg is a well known supporter of Democrat and Liberal causes...and has been behind several of the Obama suits filed, and dismissed..... are you begining to see my point now?
You seem to take issue with my term “Obama nullification team” The reason I’ve coined that term is.....
While attending townhall meetings held by my local US Representative last summer, I observed that they were always attended by well dressed, well spoken people, with camera friendly looks, from Obama’s “Outreach for America.”
In one meeting I attended on Healthcare, the OforA
spokeslady, speaking to the local TV cameras, stated that she was aghast at all the racist comments, and anger directed at Obama during the Townhall....Funny, there was not one sign with obama’s name on it, except a couple opposing “Obamacare,” and no one had even mentioned Obama during the discussion in any way. Additionally, the attendees, with the exception of the supporters of the HCR Bill, about 150 of the 2300+ attendees, were calm, well reasoned, and well spoken (it’s a fairly wealthy district). ......
You may scoff at the term I used, but from my limited, and local experience, I can say that there is a concerted, well planned and executed, effort on part of Obama, and his supporters, to sell him and his agenda....up to and including his eligibility to be President.
No, that is not what I’m saying. One more time, what I am saying is that there is no constitutional requirement that one’s parents be natural born citizens in order for a person to run for and be elected president.
Good, but that’s neither what I said, nor what I am saying ...... NBC says that your parents must be citizens..... there is no requirement that they themselves be NBC, else no one, or at least very, very few, would meet the requirements set out for the Presidency.
My great-grandparents were, 6 of 8, naturalized American citizens, but my grandparents 4 of 4, were born in the US, to American (naturalized) citizens ...... they were NBCs......as were my parents..... as am I......as are my children.....as are their children....it’s not that hard of a requirement to fulfill.....yet one that Obama fails......
When a former conservative Republican state legislator in Georgia becomes a federal judge and imposes $20,000 in sanctions against Orly Taitz, that also indicates frivolousness as well as incompetence.
You’re not trying to get me to defend Orly Taitz, or her abilities as an attorney, are you? LOLOLOL
You’re making my point that the Courts will not Cert. any case other than one that is flawless in it’s brief, because of the important Constitutional questions the descision will address/answer......
For a parallel example, look how many suits on the basic question of what the 2nd Amendments actually means, or who it applies to, were not granted Cert, until “Heller”, and at the Appeals level the 5th Circuit’s well researched decision in “Emerson.” ( The 9th Circuit, later made a highly flawed decision in Siliveira v Lockyer that is in conflict with the 5ths decision and Heller, and I expect it to be overturned someday.... typical for the 9th Circus.).
Because of all the failures at getting a Writ of Cert. for 2nd Amendment cases are you suggesting that all 2nd Amendment cases are frivilous? Of course you’re not....disputing your own point about Obama.........
—————————————————————————————— You can try to spin Justice Thomas’ words any way you want. The question was about whether a Puerto Rico-born Congressman can ever be president and the context was possible statehood for Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rican Statehood is a matter of the Puerto Ricans themselves voting for it..... so far they have rejected it themselves....and, in any event, is beyond the pervue of the USSC..I don’t see your point?
What Justice Thomas suggested, in response to the Congressman’s question about his eligibilty to run for President, was to say....we’re avoiding answering that question (about the reuirement of Presidential eligibilty), why don’t you try for the Supreme Court.... you meet the requirements for that......... That’s not spin....read the exact quotes again.
The only court that has rendered an actual decision on that point with regard to Barack Hussein Obama II agreed with me and disagreed with you: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al
You sure do like that flawed descision by a back water State Appeals Court don’t you? It crops up frequently in your posts... (My apologies to the Hoosiers out there, we have the same, and sometimes worse problem with courts in my state).
There is a reason that there are State Supreme Courts, Federal Appeals Courts, and a US Supreme Court. Ankeny is a prime example......
Actually the main thrust of the original Indiana Superior Court (municipal/county?) case was to try and backdoor the Obama eligibility question by questioning the Governors Certification the Electors to the Electoral College... not square on point to begin with, and even if it reaches the Federal level, much less the US Supreme Court, I doubt that it will be heard, or issued a Writ of Cert..... Too flawed a brief to be taken seriously in a question of Constitutional import....
BTW... WAK revolved around the question of birthright citizenship using the 14th Amend. for argument, (Wong was trying to get around draconian immigration laws limiting Chinese immigration/naturization) and the Court ruled in his favor, saying that he was a citizen, will all rights of citizenship as if he had been a NBC.
Two points.....1) They did not declare him a NBC as the IAC stated they did, they just said he had the same rights as if he was a NBC, and 2) There is no right to be President, you must meet the Constitutional Requirements of the Office....like I said a flawed decision, not something I’d want to hang hang my hat on.....
The IAC rendered a flawed decision, based on a flawed reading of WAK.... doubtful that Ankeny will ever be used as a citation in any other court decision/brief, or anywhere else for that matter......save by you in a FR post.....
ANY and I repeat ANY district attorney, state Attorney General or US Attorney in the nation could initiate a grand jury investigation (remember the Whitewater, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky Grand Jury investigations?).
Other than the Paula Jones Civil Rights suit, a civil suit btw, the remainder of the cases were Federal actions..... you are not seriously suggesting that Attorney General Eric Holder, or his Deputy District AGs, file suit/charge Obama, or that he, Obama, appoint a Special Prosecuter to investigate his own eligibility are you?......well.... OK...sigh.
I’m afraid a State Attorney General would lack “standing,” ditto any state district attorney, Obama’s Presidency is a matter of Federal, rather than State Law........ Interesting idea though......I’d like the whole Donk Party be charged as a RICO enterprise.......LOLOLOLOL