Posted on 03/10/2009 10:16:05 AM PDT by Free America52
. . . . t any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
Dr. Taitz has a case pending before SCOTUS?
You said — “You can see it in post #25 ... the repeat of ‘we won, you can’t do anything about it now ... but I’ll pretend to be one of you all so I can keep feeding you this drek.’”
—
The only problem with that is you’re ignoring the fact that I didn’t vote for Obama and did for the McCain/Palin ticket. You’re also (very conveniently) ignoring all that I’ve told you all along (which you can check on my posts before the election) that I also campaigned against Obama and also asked (on this board) for documentation for being a candidate.
However, I and other conservatives “lost the election”, and I realize that this issue was going nowhere (as almost 10 million more of the voting public voted for Obama than for McCain).
You know of this stuff that I’ve said, as it’s documented here on Free Republic and yet you persist in saying something that is not true about my position.
It’s like the other poster said — “Obama and his Obots are starting to sweat again. :-)” ... Well, the problem is that it’s a false assertion, because I didn’t vote for him... So, you’re barking up the wrong tree here... LOL...
—
The fact of the matter is that the only way to remove Obama from office, is by what the Constitution says, by Impeachment and by conviction. Past that — the only other way to remove Obama from office is to replace him in the next Presidential election, in 2012.
That’s why I’ve been working with my Oklahoma legislators to pass that bill that is being put through now in Oklahoma, to require by law the documentation (that Obama did not produce) that would show that he is qualified per the Constitution. Once this law gets through several different states and into law, then Obama will have to produce documentation. That’s the solution to the problem of getting Obama out of office.
From the SCOTUS web site itself:
"Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions. [snip] In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html
The quest becomes, has anyone verified for a fact that the PRINT version has the identical docketing information? That is, does the print record state that Scalia refered Wrot's case for conference?
Thanks for the ping.
Very interesting info. I wonder why the Secret Service just appeared and took the info she gave him?
I also find it hard to believe that Scalia didn’t remember her case from January. Maybe because it was never presented to him?
VERY encouraging that she was told that he would hear it.
Something nefarious is going on. BO has his toadies everywhere, doesn’t he?
File under shameless promotion if you wish, but unpsun’s internet radio show last night was supposed to have Phil Berg on but got basically bumped to tonight for a “glitch”, given Dr. OT’s assertion of other technical problems, I go ahead here. See:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
Monday, March 9, 2009
UPDATE: Eligibility Challengers Phil Berg, Tuesday 8pm ET & Mario Apuzzo, Thr.; Streaming Interviews & Archive
Our carrier, blogtalkradio.com had a rare (I trust) technical glitch and since we were given 15 minutes for “The Awakening,” this Monday, Philip Berg has graciously agreed to be our guest at the same time, tomorrow, this Tuesday, 8pm ET,,,5pm PT. We trust that, unlike Barack Obama, a.k.a., Barry Soetoro, blogtalkradio.com’s problems are behind them.
The Awakening with Hanen & Arlen
3/10/2009 8:00 PM — Streaming Link
[go to site]
Philip Berg will be our guest and we will be discussing Hollister v Soetoro and the arrogant memorandum US District Court Judge James Robertson issued. Also, did Obama’s lawyers really say the original birth certificate could be embarrassing to Obama and the Democratic Party? Why is there so much obstruction in these cases against Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama?
Call-in Number, to listen, or press 1 to ask a question: (646) 727-2652
Indeed, see my post #43 above yours.
I noticed that as well. I wonder where that question came from.
I said Congress would impeach Obama AFTER the Supreme Court found Obama NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President.
And If Congress refused to impeach the Usurper, they would get destroyed on election day. The "solid evidence" would be SCOTUS finding Obama not qualified. This issue is gravely more serious than the Clinton impeachment, no comparison. You would have a "President" occupying the White House without the power to execute his office. The Executive Branch would be in disarray. The US government frozen. Congress would have no choice but to remove him from office.
The military would not have to listen to his orders — *once* a conviction is obtained from the Senate, in a Trial, which would have been given to them by the House, having Impeached him.
But, prior to a conviction — Obama is not guilty — namely, he has to be *convicted* first, by the Senate, before he is removed from office. It’s just like Clinton — he still remained *President* with no lessening of his powers — even while they were *counting* the votes for conviction (or “failing to convict”).
No, Obama military orders would be in jeopardy if SCOTUS found him not Constitutionally qualified. Have you read the military oath of service? Read the very first line. You'll find the answer there.
Clinton never stopped being President — even though, theoretically — he might have been removed from office at a particular time.
Clinton was never convicted by the Senate but was impeached by the House. Of course Clinton never stopped being president. The Clinton issue was not about being an Unconstitutional President. Your point is a non sequitur and moot.
USSS does not protect SCOTUS. She must be just assuming it was USSS...The SCOTUS has its own small sworn police force with limited jurisdiction...if a Judge travels, they travel with a Supreme Court cop who has a Special Deputation thru the US Marshal Service. If it is a big event, the Marshal Service will provide a protective detail.
I don’t know where Arlen is coming from here in description of tonight’s show with Berg.
Just making doubly sure this isn’t getting mixed up with subject Taitz thread, thanks.
Thanks IP.
“Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions. [snip] In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls.
***Errors? Deviations? Discrepancies? Doesn’t anyone proof read anymore?
Repealing the 17th will do nothing without also repealing the 16th and replacing it with the HR 25 FairTax legislation (http://www.fairtax.org).
Both the 16 and 17th were given to us in 1913.
Think again. There are three other ways Obama can be removed from office other than impeachment and conviction by Congress and election.
Its also very interesting that Obama gave up his Law License in 2002 voluntarily! Who, as a Lawyer gives up his/her Law License for No Good Reason? So what could the reason be that ZERO gave up his Law License? Documents show that his ife was literally “Forced” to turn in her License “ in 1994 to put to rest some alleged legal issue.
— The only problem with that is you’re ignoring the fact that I didn’t vote for Obama and did for the McCain/Palin ticket.
Like, nobody believes you...duh.
Your credulity is not high enough to float this: “The only problem with that is you’re ignoring the fact that I didn’t vote for Obama and did for the McCain/Palin ticket.”
I am getting a runtime error from the links.
:(
You said — “I said Congress would impeach Obama AFTER the Supreme Court found Obama NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President.”
Well, that’s an interesting prediction, considering “who” are the people who are in Congress now... i.e., Democrats for a very large majority. You’ve got more faith in Democrats than I do... I’m glad you do. I simply say it’s *not a given* that they will do such a thing. You seem to have great faith in Democrats, at least more “faith” than I have in Democrats...
—
You said — “And If Congress refused to impeach the Usurper, they would get destroyed on election day. The “solid evidence” would be SCOTUS finding Obama not qualified. This issue is gravely more serious than the Clinton impeachment, no comparison. You would have a “President” occupying the White House without the power to execute his office. The Executive Branch would be in disarray. The US government frozen. Congress would have no choice but to remove him from office.”
I think that if this developed, the simple answer is that he would lose at an election. You have more faith in the Democrats than I do. I think the voting public would turn him out of office, with solid evidence to that effect.
Of course, *that* has been the problem all along — in that there has been *absolutely no evidence* that any court has affirmed and/or adjudicated that this is the case.
If this *ever* happens (that a court does adjudicate such a thing, i.e., “evidence”) — then — this issue will get some traction. In the meantime — it’s been going nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.
Talking about all the “what-ifs” of what Congress will do and what the Supreme Court will do — is fun to talk about — but *it’s not the reality* of what is happening today. It’s all “theoretical talk” at this point in time. It has been all “theoretical talk” from the time before the election to right up to the inauguration and now all the way into the Presidency of Obama...
—
You said — “No, Obama military orders would be in jeopardy if SCOTUS found him not Constitutionally qualified. Have you read the military oath of service? Read the very first line. You’ll find the answer there.”
Well, the phrase “be in jeopardy” is a weasel phrase anyway. That’s like saying that a Senator’s position “is in jeopardy” if he is convicted of a crime that makes him ineligible for office. Of course, “it’s in jeopardy” — which is a different matter than “not being Senator”.
Likewise with a President, like Clinton, his position as President *was in jeopardy* during the Impeachment and Trial (concerning his crimes that he was accused of). And even though his position was “in jeopardy” — he was still President (and his position was “still in jeopardy” all the while...LOL...).
So, Obama’s position in office may be “in jeopardy” but it’s only an “accomplished fact” *if* he is removed — until then, it’s simply “in jeopardy” and he’s still President...
—
You said — “Clinton was never convicted by the Senate but was impeached by the House. Of course Clinton never stopped being president. The Clinton issue was not about being an Unconstitutional President. Your point is a non sequitur and moot.”
The problem is — the crimes that Clinton is said to have committed would make him “unfit” to be President, and thus require his removal.
Likewise, Obama is being accused of a crime too, just like Clinton was accused of a crime. Obama’s accusation of a crime is that he’s not Constitutionally qualified. A crime is still a crime, no matter if one President has one kind of a crime and another President has another kind of crime. They all require conviction and removal from office.
So, Obama would have to be convicted of such a crime and then removed. Short of that, no amount of accusations is going to change his present position as President of the United States.
The next election might change it, when these bills in Arizona and Oklahoma get through the legislatures and get passed into laws — which requires candidates to show specific documentation or else they cannot be on the ballot....
Amen
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.