Posted on 11/20/2008 5:20:26 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The pattern that your missing is through the lack of having toiled over thousands of posts written on this forum regarding this issue. You may change your mind when a few new facts are revealed to you.
They demonstrate an intent to conceal the lack of Natural Birth status as opposed to the familial embarassment caused by illigitimacy, parentage, religion, racial description, or adopting a new Muslim name as an adult.
The facts that raise a red flag are:
1. His working and input on Senate Resolution 511 that was indended to grant natural born staus to those born abroad (this ‘Obama clause’ was later removed from the resolution). The resolution was the result of an unnecessary legislation attempt to grant McCain NB status, something the Senate has no power to accomplish on its own accord.
2. The breach of his own passport file by a private subcontactor that was later found to be major campaign donors and advisors for his own campaign.
3. The realization that Honolulu and Mombasa conveniently became ‘sister cities’ in the year 2000 as the arrangement was set up by a political activist and Democrat Elector.
So, do you think the USSC justices have the balls to declare him ineligible?
We hope that they will ask him to substantiate that he is Constitutionally qualified. They can only ask him to submit to authority if he wants to be POTUS. If he chooses not to release the proper documents, then he can return to Illinois.
1. If he is prepared and readily supplies documents that prove that he is eligible as BHO II, born in USA, than so be it.
2. We could only assume that he would not attempt to submit bogus or fraudulent items to the SCOTUS. Therefore, the onus or burden of proof falls on his shoulders. At this point, I would think he would use the guise of his dual-citizenship status granted by his father as the most graceful way to bow-out of the situation.
His fans and supporters would have no reason to blame SCOTUS for his withdrawal, although people may initially react another way.
3. If he attempts to blazenly defraud SCOTUS and their document experts, then it becomes a more volatile situation and opens up a larger can of worms in terms of the degree of deception. It could involve more than original Birth Certificate issue.
a. Usage of Aliases on election ballots. (A state or federal crime or both?)
b. Acceptance of aid and college admissions due to a foreign student application. An embarassment, but Occidental, Columbia & Harvard are all private schools, so it is not a government problem.
c. Failing to register for Selective Service Registration (SSR) or Document altercation, that is a requirement for POTUS.
I’m sure if SCOTUS would contemplate the reaction of his followers, the issue would be handled in a proper way to instill confidence in our system and form of government. Except for a handful of thugs, rational Americans will accept the rule of law.
Bravo!
Now that was a beautiful and well coined response.
A birth announcement in a newspaper means zip. Anyone can put an announcement in when a child is born somewhere else.
The only birth certificate that has appeared has been proven to be a fraud by at least two authorities.
If Hawaii will not accept a COLB for native Hawaiianship, Why should we accept one for natural born status to be President?
There is a reason, you know.
So what is your take on the fact that Hawaii will not accept their own COLBs for proving one is a native Hawaiian, for all the perks that go with that, but that the long form of the Birth Certificate is required?
If Hawaii will not accept a COLB for native Hawaiianship, Why should we accept one for natural born status to be President?
There is a reason, you know.
Yes, there is indeed a reason: Hawaii’s confidentiality of vital records laws, its statutes stating that the short form COLB is valid as “prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding” and its laws on establishing status as a Native Hawaiian were written many years before Barack Obama ran for President.
I have been saying this for weeks now!!,,Sarah Palin can ‘sneeze’ wrong and it’s on the MSM ,,but let something as important as a Pres Elect not being a Natural Born Ciztizen and everybody shuts the hell up!!,,this really ticks me off!,,I think it should be said!!,,THE MSM NEEDS TO RUN WITH IT ESPEICALLY ‘FOX’ !!!!,,PUT THE PRESSURE ON THIS CREEP TO PROVE IT!!
Why indeed?
My opinion of many Americans doesn't alter my conservative beliefs. I can't make a lot of stupid, selfish people any less so by having faith in them.
They are what they are and that's the way it is. Libs have done pretty well by appealing to the baser part of people. That says as much about those that listen and believe their claptrap as it does about the liberals that spew it.
Who is worse, those serving up the crap, or those eagerly eating it? Libs wouldn't be where they are if there wasn't a market for hate, class warfare and ignorant envy.
It is not a mere technicality, It is the rule of law. If the constitution of the US is not worth defending against mob rule, then nothing is.
We must not allow the moral emphasis of this argument to be inverted. All this speculation, correct or not; has come about because this lying crypto-marxist thug from the most corrupt environs of leftist Chicago sewer politics has ascended to POTUS-elect status with the willing aquiescence of the MSM. The MSM was hell-bent on concealing this usurper’s background because they wanted him to be elected. Now, in a classic case of blame the messenger, those of us who belive in the constitution are being reviled for insisting that a POTUS comply with a basic requirement that most of us unhesitatingly conform with when seeking a driver’s license.
The arrogance and effrontery of this lying bastid is breathtaking. The founders knew that they were not natural born citizens, so they had to include language in Art II Sec 1 that exempted THEM. Does this fraud think that he is better than Washington, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson in that sense? Apparently he does, and with the acquiesence of enough people, he will suceed in usurping and corrupting the Executive Branch of government. This situation presents the very real posssibility of impelling this great nation beyond a constitutional crisis toward a civil war.
Finally, consider the implications of a man who would undertake these devious machinations to knowingly assume an office that he has no constitutional claim to, and than to see this same counterfeit president elect take an oath to defend that constitution. I believe that such a man would be willing to impose ANY sort or despotism or tyranny upon us to retain power.
Here’s another idea of his paternity:
Quoted from: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=831699&boardsparam=Page%3D3
Under the heading: Biography of Stanley Ann Dunham was removed in 35 minutes the first time and 34 minutes the second time when updated.
According to an email I [Person who posted on url above] received yesterday from a friend in Cuba. Barack Obama’s mother was in Cuba as part of a team of American Socialists who went to help Cuba after the revolution. According to them she was pregnant when she left Cuba in December 1960, two months later she married Barack Obama Sr. in Hawaii.
Quoted from: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=831699&boardsparam=Page%3D3
Under the heading: Biography of Stanley Ann Dunham was removed in 35 minutes the first time and 34 minutes the second time when updated.
I've lost faith in the idea that you can single-handedly bring a liberally brain-washed person back from the brink and into the light. I've failed so many times at that, that I've come to understand that it's a personal journey of discovery. No one else can force another to look, or listen to the truth. They've got to at least want to know more for themselves.
In that same vein, there are millions and millions of others who have either discovered the truth for themselves, or were brought up around it, and spared the brain-washing of the liberal left.
Many of those people are here on this forum. And we're worth having faith in, my friend.
bttt
I’m with you. Just observing that millions will see it as a technicality, and many will fight to see it is dismissed as trivial.
National “Ask Alan”/AIP conference call
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Opening remarks
Alan Keyes:
Thank you very much. I thought what I would do this evening is just take a minute or two and explain in a very simple way what I have been involved with in the last couple of weeks. We have talked about it a little bit on the calls before. You’ll notice that I lent my name to a couple of the suits that are taking place to try to determine whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. And just so that there would be no misunderstanding—and I did try to make this clear in the press release that we had issued about the case I got involved with in California—I guess I am not, myself, having looked over all of the facts and evidence and things that people have graciously sent to me and did in the course of the last several weeks, I am not sure I am able to reach a conclusion as to what the facts are.
But what has appalled me, I guess, even as I have read the transcript of court decisions and things like that that have been taken up to this point, is the notion that somehow or another, step number one, citizens don’t have standing to ask him, even though the Constitution is a document that speaks for “we the people.” When people go to the polls to vote, presumably they have both an obligation to respect the Constitution—I think in Florida, for instance, people actually have to take an oath to do so—and the expectation that it will be followed. Therefore, as a whole people, we have a critical interest in making sure that the supreme law of the land, as expressed in the Constitution—which gives proper basis and procedure to our sovereign will as the people of the United States —be followed. And yet, there has been an almost casual assumption, including, I think, the judge in the Berg case who was arguing things about the electorate having made a choice, and so forth and so on, as if any given instance of the majority overrides the Constitution. And I find it kind of incongruous that you would have this kind of an attitude coming from the bench, since the whole notion of judicial review, which they constantly are exercising, is based on the idea that an instance of majority will, whether it’s a legislature deciding on a law, or any other instance of a majority vote, that that instance of a majority will does not override the Constitution of the United States.
And this is something that has been clear: that you have a duty to follow the Constitution, that the judges, if they see in a law something that conflicts with the Constitution, have to therefore follow the Constitution, not the will of the majority as expressed through their representatives, or even as directly expressed in some electoral contest. No. Because, as Hamilton argued in Federalist 78—and I want to read this, because I think it is very important—“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both.”
And of course, in the Constitution itself, by the authority of the people, a procedure is put down for amending the Constitution—that is, for changing its terms—and unless that procedure is followed, the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the Constitution is the supreme law and must be followed. That is so simple. It is so clear. So, in this particular case, the Constitution says that in order to be eligible for the presidency, you’ve got to be a natural born citizen. If, on account of the incompetence of the party system, or its corruption, or whatever may be the reasoning, an individual happens to win a presidential election who turns out not to be qualified, then the Constitution still has to be followed. The idea that it does not I think is a dangerous situation for the whole country, because it suggests that somehow or another, on the basis of this or that majority will, as expressed in this or that way, the Constitution becomes a dead letter. And then you ask yourself, what becomes of the fundamental rights, for instance, in the Bill of Rights if the Constitution becomes a dead letter when a given majority wants to run roughshod over the rights of a minority?
What if that attitude had been taken during the course of the argumentations and struggles in the Civil Rights movement, in the women’s rights movement, and in all kinds of things that have ultimately depended on the assumption that there is an understanding of justice—as articulated in the Constitution, as expressed in our understanding of basic, unalienable rights—that has to be followed, even by the majority?
In order to maintain the Union, which allows us to go through elections and sit back and say, “Well, we didn’t win this time, but we’ll wait for the next time,” what we are trusting in, what we are giving credence to, what we are lending authority to is not the will of the majority: it is the Constitution of the United States. You take away the authority of the Constitution, as expressed through that transcendent will of the people, and what have you got in any given instance of a majority vote? You’ve got a majority imposing its will on a minority that may or may not be willing to accept that will. For the sake of what do the folks who lose the vote accept the result? Well, for the sake of the Constitution, to which we all bear allegiance. Once you have destroyed the notion that that Constitution must be respected, you have introduced the country into a very dangerous state, in which individuals who are disgruntled with the way things are going and the way the majority decides, and the way “this and that—,” they no longer say to themselves, “Well, we are all part of a Union, based on our commitment to the Constitution and its basic respect for human rights that it represents,” no, that is no longer binding. They are left to say, “The only thing that binds us is force, and therefore, if you come to force me to accept your will, then I’ll oppose you by force, and we’ll see what happens.” Do we want that in this country? I think not.
I guess it’s my hope that regardless of how the facts fall out, the only interest in all of this ought to be to ascertain the fact. If that fact is in accordance with the Constitution, fine. We’ll do what we always do. We’ll accept the result, and we’ll go on trying to build, as we are building through this effort that Tom and others are making. You start to work in political life, you build an alternative so that people can, by the means provided for in the Constitution, continue to work for the things that they believe in. I think that is what we all believe.
On the other hand, if the facts are not in accordance with the Constitution, then I would presume that those in authority would understand it to be their obligation to follow the Constitution, so as not to undermine the sense of its authority, the allegiance to that authority, which I think at the end of the day has, in the course of this country’s history, preserved us from the kind of turmoil and difficulties that often arise in other societies on account of political competition.
I think that this is something that has been understood in America since the very earliest years of the republic: that our commitment to and allegiance to the Constitution is vitally important to the Union and the peaceful work that we do together as citizens in the same county. And I would sincerely hope that judges on the federal bench, or on the Supreme Court, or wherever it might be, will feel deeply their responsibility to this tradition, and will not only make a decision that is in accord with the facts, but will be seen to make it in accord with the Constitution, so that whatever comes out of this, it will affirm the fact that we are still a people sovereign through this constitutional instrument, and respecting that fact, rather than trying to move down a road that, at the end of the day, would begin as majority tyranny, but would end as some form of oligarchy, party dictatorship—call it what you will, it would be the end of democratic self-government.
And so, that is my thinking, as I have participated in this effort. And I think that the question has been raised, the facts are not clear, and that those officials who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution owe it to the Constitution and to the people of this country to deal with this issue with integrity and expeditiously, so that we can clear the air and get on with the great business of this country. So, that is what I had to say tonight. Thank you.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=973&posts=36#M3414
bttt
Obtaining a second passport as part of dual nationality does NOT affect Obama's US citizenship nor does it indicate that he is declaring his allegiance to Indonesia any more than Rahm Emanuel's Israeli passport and service at an Israeli army base during the Gulf War affect his citizenship. Here is a list of POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS As far as I know, Obama has never taken an overt action to renounce his citizenship.
even if he was born in Hawai'i, because following the 1961 US Constitution, his mother failed to qualify him by having him when she was 18. She should have waited a year.
1961 US Constitution? If Obama or anyone else is born in the US, they are natural born citizens even if their parents were illegal aliens. We have birthright citizenship under jus solis.Okay, but he still cannot be NATURAL BORN, no matter how you examine it.
He can be natuaral born if he was born on US soil, or if his mother was unwed even if he was born overseas.
Policy is not law and Berg believes the Hague Convention requires the US to respect the law of Indonesia in preventing dual nationality. I guess Berg’s contention here would be that so long as it doesn’t contradict the Constitution, treaties are law, even if they don’t appear in the statute books.
I don’t know whether dual nationality is prohibited by Ireland or Israel, so it may not apply there. I’m virtually certain Israel doesn’t prohibit dual nationality, since a significant fraction of the population openly votes in US elections. It could also be that Berg is right, but nobody previously felt like pressing the issue.
I don’t believe Berg is right, but the law is sufficiently complex and I am sufficiently ignorant that I admit that he might be. Frankly, I think Berg is throwing everything up against the wall that he can imagine to see if anything will stick.
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.