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 ...
Gee, maybe calling Thomas unqualified wasn’t Barry’s smartest move.
THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT HE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT A
NATURAL BORN, I REPEAT, NATURAL BORN, CITIZEN. YES HE IS A CITIZEN, BUT HE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THAT IS WHY HE IS INELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
My gut is now telling me that the Supremes are going to weave a convoluted theory as to why he qualifies as a natural born citizen, and put this to an uneasy rest.
THE PROBLEM IS HE IS A DEMOCRAT, I REPEAT A DEMOCRAT AND THIS WILL BE SURE TO SLIDE,I REPEAT THIS WILL BE SURE TO SLIDE.
“Is Obama a U.S. citizen?”
Already posted yesterday, but worth posting twice, IMO:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2135131/posts
Whatever happened to Andy Martin’s day in Hi? His sites still say he is going to Hi. on the 18th for the Hawaiian SC hearing. LOL
Also, Berg is still saying the , the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.
You should have said:
THIS WAS POSTED TWICE, I REPEAT, THIS WAS POSTED TWICE
Alan Keyes has filed suit in California. He claims to have footage of Obama’s grandmother indicating that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. Obama’s mother was to young to pass along U.S. citizenship.
Other stories have Obama born into British citizenship and/or changing to Indonesian citizenship as a minor child- eligibility disqualifiers.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Gotta remember, a lotta folks in high places think the Constitution is “just a goddmned piece of paper”
corrected url....
All Obama has to do, and all he has had to do all along, is produce a hard copy of his original birth certificate, and this all goes away.
The fact that he won’t do this very simple thing means he’s hiding something.
What I find bizarre is that nobody is calling him on this. Not only in the MSM, but anywhere else. I haven’t heard it dealt with on talk radio, Fox or anywhere else.
The question is whether the US constitution is determinative as fact of a persons birth place.
Hawaii State law will give a "State Birth Certificate" to a person who is born outside of Hawaii in terms of situs, if one or both parents are citizens of Hawaii.
If the Supreme Court says that de jure, Obama was born in Hawaii, and that is determined as a matter of fact at law, the Obama qualifies.
That would seem to be a fabrication at law.
The US Constitution is not ambiguous abot the matter. It requires that a person be :
1) Natural born ( this is an interesting requirement for the future, supposing that a person could conceivably born "un-naturally" that is, a clone for example?).
2) in the United States ( does this include territories of the USA, and military bases situarted abroad, for example?It is possible to get a federal birth certificate, my son has one, " Birth of an American Citizen Abroad". Mu son would not qualify to run for president in the defacto sense, even though he is a US Citizen.
I believe that the court will hear this case. The law is ambiguous and requires further definition.It will likely reach the threshold test and I believe that they will decide the case forthwith ( within weeks) in favor of the Obamster.
OR if they refuse to hear the case, it will be on grounds of personal privacy, after perusing Obamas birth record in a closed conference. Obama does not want the public to know who his real father is, because it certainly is not as he has portrayed in his two books.
In jest, I think that Obama is related to a now deceased one armed paper hanger from Germany, his true spiritual father.
The judge has not issued a decision yet from the Andy Martin hearing this past Tuesday in Hawaii. Evidently, Martin and the Hawaii Attorney General “went at it” in this hearing.
In PA. with the Philip J. Berg case, I believe that Obama has to respond to a “Writ of Certiorari” by December 2.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
We’ll not see the BC.
It has at least has some embarassing information like “Muslim” or “Father: [someone else]” -
otherwise, there is no way they wouldn’t have cleared this up with just showing the darn thing.
Justice Thomas is not known for his convoluted logic on cases. So I’m not sure he will be with that program.
This is interesting. Now what does it take for the media to report on it when it is sitting on the desk now of Justice Thomas?
It isn’t an afterthought of conspiracy thought now.
Rush very carefully danced around this a couple of weeks ago.
Yep, modern forensic analysis can be a bitch. If he can't produce a valid BC, then what? But if he produces a fake and it's shown to be a fake, then that is even worse for him.
Rock, meet hard place.
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.