Posted on 06/20/2011 12:56:33 PM PDT by Elderberry
On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.
This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:
a. In the United States of America presidential elections are conducted by individual states, through state ballots and the states are the ones vetting eligibility of different candidates to be on respective state ballots. Presidential candidate has to be a Natural born citizen based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution.
Legitimacy of the state ballot and state elections is a right and a function guaranteed to the individual states based on the 10th amendment, as it is not one of enumerated powers reserved for the Federal government. No decision by Congress, no ratification by Congress can usurp such powers.
b. Plaintiffs are stating, that 2008 election was not legitimate, as Mr. Obama is not a Natural born citizen, being a child of a foreign national and not having any valid US vital records. Recent disclosure of Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate shows it to be a forgery, CT Social Security number 042-68-xxxx, that he is using, was never assigned to him and there is evidence of fraud and/or forgery in his Selective Service certificate and his educational records.
The Plaintiffs were denied standing and the case was dismissed. Current decision by Bond v United States gives the Plaintiffs standing to proceed. In an unanimous decision the court stated “The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of Federalism. See New York, supra, at 181.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
This always pissed me off ROYALLY that the courts said we had ‘no standing’ to question Obambi...
My life is DIRECTLY AFFECTED by everything the (illegal) president does- ESPECIALLY obamneycare
Reading. You might find it useful.
From YOUR link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2712234/posts?page=17#17
“None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle”.
Word salad? Just mix em up with tongs and call it an argument.
Hey, did you hear the one about Obama and his promise to bring back civility to American politics?
Word Salad is simple. You seem to be wielding nothing but Obama tongs. Toss that salad Blade. Really, Blade?
“I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when then don’t like who is winning”.
Winning? Charlie Sheen winning? Are you winning, Blade?
No, that is beginning of case, since his birth certificate proves that he is not a natural born citizen (assuming that the “Father” shown on the bc really was the legal father) thus he is not president.
>> “PV is very safe and affordable.” <<
.
But notably lacking in adequate highway access.
>> “None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle” <<
.
Just what does that bit of blather mean to you?
We have been speaking up loudly since the spring of 2008 about O not being a natural born citizen under the definition of common usage of the time the constitution was written, and the definition (same) that was stated in four Supreme Court cases.
I used to find myself going "Huh?" when I would read what some people had written on this issue. Now I realize that throughout the internet there is a cadre of agent provocateurs attempting to intentionally spread bad logic and disinformation, and most of the time they are hiding behind legalistic pseudo logic. I now confront them with the silliness of their own assertions. This is a battle for reality over illusion, and we need to win it.
From what i've read, Yes. I've seen at least one other birth certificate signed by U.K.lele. (or however it is spelled.) Interestingly enough, he was supposedly the registrar from the Wahiwah district, not Honolulu. Just another item to garner suspicion.
When you can explain why the status of Slaves and Indians did not comport with your "Black's law" definition, let me know. Till then, you are just making noise.
“Legal Jargon is fine, but when it conflicts with actual facts, it needs to be slapped down hard because it is misleading.”
That’s not what you did. None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle.
You are going to have to make your point more clear. It may make sense to you, but it does not to me.
Article II is all about Allegiance. Born to one Foreign Father and raised by another in a foreign country, Obama's allegiance is unquestionable.
He has none. Eligible he is not. Only idiot Democrats are stupid enough to have thought so in the first place.
Democrats: Party of lies and evil. From Racist Andrew Jackon (making the south safe for slavery) to Idiot Barack/Barry/Steve Hussein Soetoro/Soebarkhoe/Obama, or whatever his name is.
Funny you should ask. I already responded that he would have to make his point more clear because I didn't get what he was trying to say.
We have been speaking up loudly since the spring of 2008 about O not being a natural born citizen under the definition of common usage of the time the constitution was written, and the definition (same) that was stated in four Supreme Court cases.
I actually never thought he would get out of the primary what with all the Racist Democrat voters, but the media had declared he was going to be their man so they put an enormous effort into pushing him and denying Hillary. Were it not for the fact that the media employees 95% Liberal Democrats, both of them would have been a greasy spot before the nominations even began.
Whatever happened to half way reasonable Democrats like Sam Nunn? Their party is now just full of nuts, kooks and liars.
Speaking loudly since Spring ‘08 on a fact well known since 1961.
Please subtract all motivation and address DiogenesLamp's point, or else concede.
Trolls commonly seek to make a poster the issue, especially when they are out of logic and factual ammo...
The “necessary and proper” clause is about making laws, not about determining one person’s eligibility. Congress CAN make laws regarding the implementation of the Constitution’s requirements. But they’ve never passed a law establishing a procedure whereby Presidential eligibility is determined, which means that there is no current legal process for this to be determined, and each controversy that arises has to be decided through the courts. But they refuse.
In regards to “natural born citizen”, we have come to a dangerous place if the legislative branch interprets the Constitution rather than the judicial branch. The separation of powers and checks and balances were put in place for a reason. Congress’ record on Constitutionality is even more dismal than SCOTUS’s. People like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid should not be deciding what the Constitution means.
The Constitution specifically has a tougher process to be amended or interpreted than anything Congress does, because the Constitution is supposed to be the foundation. No mere Congressional vote is supposed to mess with the foundation. If the elected people are going to make changes to the Constitution there is a strict process that has to be used, and that is for our protection, since Congress is one of the most easily-corruptible bodies on the planet.
To put Congress in charge of interpreting the US Constitution messes with the whole foundation. To put any individual state Secretary of State in charge of interpreting the US Constitution also messes with the whole foundation - which is what SCOTUS is doing: passing the buck to people who have NO CLUE how to interpret the Constitution. It is treason for the Supreme Court to refuse to do what only they can do, on such a critical Constitutional issue, with such far-reaching ramifications.
The whole system of checks and balances, separation of powers, supremacy of the US Constitution and the judiciary’s authority to interpret and apply the Constitution in matters of both law and fact... all that went into the state eligibility bills that I and others have worked on, to ensure that none of the founding principles were violated or altered, but that they would actually be implemented as intended.
Congress can challenge the actions of a President. That’s what is going on with Libya. Any member of Congress could have filed suit over an action of Obama, raising the issue of whether he had “failed to qualify”. They would have standing, because Obama is the person who either signs or vetoes legislation that those people give input on. Congress doesn’t have to sit like lumps on a log. If we had any patriots in Congress they should have stepped up to the plate a long time ago - by filing a suit that would force the judiciary to deal with the crimes committed by Obama et al in order to cover his ineligibility AND to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen”.
But if there were any patriots on SCOTUS they would already have done their Constitutional duty and taken up such an important “controversy”.
As it is right now, everybody in government is corrupt. I don’t trust any of them, any farther than I can throw the whole lot of them. We need to make it so that the “right to petition the government for a redress of grievances” means more than somebody filing a suit and the courts ignoring it because they say the person “lacks standing”.
The rght to petition the government for a redress of grievances has to mean something real. It has to mean that real people can get real results when they can prove that the government has broken laws and/or the Constitution.
Right now we’re watching this administration and its enablers openly commit crime after crime after crime, and the only question any of us have is whether anything will “stick” - whether any law actually means anything, or whether they can all be fudged and ignored because nobody will do anything about it. It’s such a ridiculous situation that just 3 short years ago I thought it impossible to reach this level.
I listen to the candidates and I think (excuse my french) “Big f-ing deal.” What difference do any of the words make, when everybody on the planet knows that whatever the power players want to get away with, they will get away with, because the little guys in Congress and in law enforcement will never stand up to them, and they totally blow off any of us little peons who don’t have a powerful position.
We have seen in other countries what happens when law enforcement refuses to do its job, when “justice” is for sale to the highest bidder. That is what is happening here. We are already a banana republic. We roared with our votes the loudest anybody has ever roared, and the R’s responded by giving away everything including the kitchen sink to the lame ducks. The system is broken because the biggest check on government is gone - the right of the people to petition AND GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT a redress of grievances.
The people in Washington DC will not show one iota of respect for the rule of law unless and until WE THE PEOPLE are able to haul them off to jail for crimes committed regardless of how their butt-covering pals in high positions try to weasel out of the law meaning anything.
I'm not sure about you. You sure write a lot of words, sort of like a lawyer. (See "words multiplied" in Gulliver's Travels.) But lots of words don't make you right. The Constitution does not give the Court(s) the power to decide anything that Congress hasn't legislated on. You need to reread "and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." None of this is left to the Court(s) nor should it have been. The only issue for the Court here absent a declaration by Congress is what might be meant by the phrase natural-born citizen.
ML/NJ
Have you read the Third Article? The courts deal with a lot of stuff that Congress hasn’t legislated. They deal with issues between states, with ambassadors, and with private entities where Constitutional issues are at stake, as well as government actions other than legislation. The courts deal with tons of stuff. And they are given the job of deciding controversies that arise out of the Constitution, in both matters of fact and law.
Congress is specifically given the job of deciding on eligibility issues regarding ITS OWN MEMBERS. But nowhere is it specifically given the job of determining eligibility for the President. To do so requires an interpretation of “natural born citizen”, and interpreting the Constituiton is the job of the JUDICIAL BRANCH, not the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
The separation of powers matters.
I should also point out that it was the Congress in 1792 that decided what was meant by the word dollar, because they thought clarification was needed. They didn't say what was meant by the word year because maybe they felt that there was no question about it. And maybe they felt the same way about natural-born citizen.
ML/NJ
So does Obama. That doesn't make it Constitutional. At least some of it is usurpation.
Asking me whether I've read Article III is juvenile. And then telling me that the Court has jurisdiction over cases involving Ambassadors, even though it says this in the Constitution borders on stupid. Do you know of any USSC cases involving Ambassadors?
And did you miss this:
In all the other [i.e. except ones involving Ambassadors] Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.In other words, the Congress has the power to tell the Supreme Court to butt out of any case or issue they want it to butt out of. It's not even clear whether the President gets a say in these "exceptions." (Cute too that such "regulations" were to be made by Congress, not the Executive.)
ML/NJ
What law has Congress made regarding how, when, and by whom Presidential eligibility is to be determined?
My point was that SCOTUS doesn’t just hear cases regarding laws that Congress passed. The Constitution gives them appellate jurisdiction over EVERYTHING - every case that arises from the laws and/or Constitution are within the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
What regulations has Congress made regarding what cases the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over? When has Congress passed a law saying that the judiciary has no jurisdiction in Presidential eligibility cases? I’d have to read up on this, but I suspect that the exceptions that Congress is authorized to make is to give SCOTUS original jurisdiction (rather than just appellate jurisdiction) in some instances so the final outcome would be expedited - not to tell SCOTUS they can’t decide certain cases, which seems to me like it would be a violation of equal protection and due process.
I’ve been saying that it is the JUDICIARY that is supposed to decide all cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution and laws. That’s what Article III says. Some of those go straight to SCOTUS; others only get to SCOTUS through appeals. Either way, it is the judiciary that has the responsibility of deciding all kinds of cases - because they are the people both equipped and authorized to interpret the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2 starts out like this:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...”
“The framers didn’t read Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth edition (1990) during the penning of the federal Constitution.”
Right. It works the other was: The editors of /Black’s/ examine the history, in particular the precedents. They actually have the expertise that so many here pretend.
/Black’s Law Dictionary/ is what’s called a “secondary source”, in that it is derived from primary and authoritative sources. If you think that means you can do better with your own naive attempts to go at the primary authorities, well, that’s a fantasy. Courts regularly cite /Black’s/, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as West Publishing wants everyone to know.
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.