Supremes to review Barack's citizenshipCase challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/20/08 | Bob Unruh

[Sammy67]

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on

[jcsjcm]

I beg to differ on your certificate:

http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg

[Lmo56]

“He sets a precedent that no proof need be shown of age, citizenship, name, or natural-born status and turns our Constitution into....”

Yeah - thats what I’m concerned about ... SCOTUS will set precedent under the concept of “stare decisis”.

Stare decisis - Latin. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

[Mariebl]

“Why the obsession?”

Wow, talk about an obsession! Is library user someone you have real-life issues with?

1) Nobody likes a tattle tale

There wasn't anything tattle-tale about the original post. It simply said that it'd been posted yesterday, gave a helpful link to that post, and added that it was worth posting twice.

2) You weren’t new once, you ARE NEW

Who cares? Six months a member, and for all any of us know, a long history of lurking before that, is all anyone needs to know about how things work.

3) Nobody likes a busy body correcting people with more rank

Well, that comment of 'rank' made me laugh out loud. Sensible people don't derrive their sense of self-worth from their length of membership on an Internet forum. Personally, I've always appreciated it when someone pointed out that an interesting article had already been posted, along with a link. It gave me more interesting comments to read.

4) You are one step above a hall monitor

Hmmmm, do we have such a problem with authority that we get upset at the slightest hint of it? I suppose that library user should feel flattered at being ranked one step above, rather than one step below....

5) Trying to shame people for duplicate posts is pathetic and controlling

Uh, if you look at the post that you took exception to, it went out of its way to not not try to shame the poster.

6) How conservative are you being this new?

Now, that's absurd. Plenty of conservatives go their entire lives without reading Free Republic. Frankly, it isn't too important in the grand scheme of things.

7) New people should STHU

Hmmm...sort of redundant with points 2 and 3. But, why should new people shut up, if they have anything valid to add to the conversation? And, I think there's nothing more valid than a link to a closely related conversation--since many people obviously don't know how to use the search function.

[freeplancer]

Gee, you must be really conservative to have only found us in 2007. Did you not hear of the elections in 2000 or 2004? What about 2006? I admire you sticking up for your DU buddy.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Conservatives don’t have to “wish” as you say. All we have to do is tell the truth.

I agree. But that's not happening. Unless the so called Republicans in the Congress are willing to do it, loud and often, our cries at this level aren't worth that much.

Even McCain could have taken BO out, but he didn't tell the truth. Apparently in his lexicon, an "honorable" campaign is not defined as speaking the truth about his opponent.

And sadly, among his Republican peers, he is one of the majority.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Are you saying that civil unrest taken to the streets takes precedence over civil unrest taken through the judicial system?

What I am saying is that the courts will take the [private] view that an illegitimate President is more palatable than blacks rioting in LA or Philly. He is going to be "legit" whether he is or not.

It is very disgusting, but that is how it is going to play out.

[Mariebl]

Gee, you must be really conservative to have only found us in 2007. Did you not hear of the elections in 2000 or 2004? What about 2006? I admire you sticking up for your DU buddy.

Hmmm...what does conservatism have to do with posting on FR?

Actually, I'd been lurking since the 2000 election controversy--I think I found FR through Drudge. It took me 7 years to overcome my distaste with the idea of being linked with some of the people who post here.

My conservative credentials, such as they are, are: Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain. I'll cheerfully admit that that defines me as a Republican, rather than a conservative, but I hope you'll admit that there's some overlap between the two.

By the way, why do you think that anyone who disagrees with you on a non-political matter--forum ettiquette--must be a member of DU? I smell troll.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Have you no faith left in the American people?

Damn little.

[ChildOfThe60s]

The greater threat of civil unrest likely resides on the right of the political spectrum, not the left.

Never has before, in my lifetime. I don't see any evidence that is changing.

Street riots are no threat in comparison to an armed insurrection.

True. *IF* the risk of armed insurrection is of the same likelihood as urban riots. Sorry, I just don't see it happening (as much as I'd like to).

What I want to happen, and what I expect to happen are polar opposites.

[Mila]

"It has at least has some embarassing information like “Muslim” or “Father: [someone else]”"

I have never heard of a birth certificate where a religious denomination is required. As for the name of the father, since you are not under oath when filling out the form, you can put any name that you want or you can put none at all.

[NOBAMA in 08]

So maybe even his Grandpappy and Best Friend might have been sharing so to speak? That kind of sexual abuse was pretty common back then, not meaning the sharing, and would go far in explaining the Mother’s obvious distancing and lack of love for Obama if he was the result of such sexual abuse! Nice to know as he gets closer to having this Immense POWER! Psychiatric Records must have been incinerated long ago:-(

[MrB]

I’m being charitable with the assumption that the BC would say he was eligible for POTUS,

and trying to come up with an explanation as to why he’s fought so hard to conceal the info in his BC.

[Windflier]

What I want to happen, and what I expect to happen are polar opposites.

I hear your skepticism, and can relate to it. However, we're living in unprecedented times. There may also be unprecedented reactions to the events of the next few months.

And, as far as precedent is concerned, the US itself is a testament to what can happen when a good and decent people are pushed too far.

[NOBAMA in 08]

Screaming is totally justified when tring to convince rocks:-) Have at it! Amen!

[Windflier]

Have you no faith left in the American people?

>> Damn little. <<

Then why are you here?

[NOBAMA in 08]

So! do you hang your head in cowardice and shame? or yell back at the Basshats that he should have opened his records honestly MONTHS ago? At least the Left is never embarressed about anything they accuse the other side of or anything they do, ANYTHING!
If ZERO finally produces a Valid, LEGAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHOWING HE IS NATURAL BORN! SHOUT HOSANAH FROM THE ROOF TOPS!! That ain’t gonna happen tho:-)

[Helen]

I understand what you are saying. I also understand that if an illegitimate president is allowed to take over the awesome powers that are the United States of America, then the United States of America, and its Constitution, ceases to exist. You cannot pick and choose which part of that great document you decide arbitrarily to discard.

An illegitimate president is just that. Any action taken by that person is illegitimate. There is no way we can sit back and let the damage be done if this person does not, in fact, meet the requirements of the Constitution to hold that office.

I have faith that the Supreme Court will look at the law and will not look at the possibility of rioting in LA or Philly. From a personal standpoint, I cannot handle thinking Chief Justice Roberts will swear in a president who is an imposter.

From Thomas Jefferson:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[razorback-bert]

If it is ruled he doesn't have to prove he is a natural born citizen, then I will know we are truly a banana republic and subject to whims of men and not the rule of law.

[jamese777]

Government forms change between 1963 and 1978.

It seems to me that the only relevant entry on the long form is the box for checking “evidence for delayed filing or alteration.”

Since Obama’s short form certificate was issued listing his birthplace as Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 there is nothing I see that would indicate evidence of a delayed filing or tampering when the certificate was originally recorded by the Registrar on August 8th, 1961.

[Aquinasfan]

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review.

A minority of the Supremes are interested in the law or the Constitution. But there's still hope. What egotistical, power-crazed, liberal can resist deciding a presidential election, even if the president-elect is one of their own?