Posted on 11/20/2008 8:10:27 PM PST by Frantzie
Posted: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:20 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.20.2008 @ 9:31 pm US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.
We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogtext.org ...
Lan’s show
http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/
There is a better link that is more direct but I can’t find it. It uses a player on his web site.
Alan Stang’s show:
http://republicbroadcasting.org/
http://republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=listenlive
THE STING OF STANG
Host(s): Alan Stang
Call In Number: 800-313-9443
Show Time: Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM CST
The Sting of Stang exposes the various manifestations of the conspiracy for world government, its players, its purposes and its techniques, from the present invasion of the United States by illegal aliens to the illegal war in Iraq to the sodomite revolution to the preposterous political process and more.
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
“you guys do realize if you take this interpretation that our first 5 presidents wernt eligible to be president because when they were born they were also british citizens. Hell washington fought along side the british at one point.”
First, welcome to Free Republic!
The Constitution states: “No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that no President of our country had any possible loyalty to another country so being “natural born” was clearly stated. At the same time, our founding fathers wanted to allow for one or more of them to run for President during the early years of our country. That is why they made sure to add “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”. This clause allowed that they could run for President because although they were citizens at the time of the adoption of our Constitution they were not “natural born” citizens because at the time of their births our country was still under British rule.
So now you must see that our first five presidents were in fact meeting the constitutional requirements since they were living at the time our constitution was adopted....even though they were citizens, not “natural born” citizens.
Depends on how & when he is disqualified.
Before November 4, disqualification would affect whether O is on the ballot of a state.
November 4 was the popular election, where citizens submitted their votes to the states, which in turn determine electors under state laws. After this date, disqualification affects how the state(s) determine and allocate their electors - it’s a state issue. The suit now before the Supreme Court, IIRC, is to demand the Secretary of State of NJ to NOT assign NJ’s electors to vote for O.
December 13 (15?) is the ACTUAL presidential election, when electors submit their votes to Congress. At this point, disqualification affects whether Congress will accept an electoral vote for a disqualified candidate. If disqualification is determined before the vote, a vote for the candidate would be rejected, or the elector would submit a vote for a non-qualified candidate (the great farce of the general election is that citizens vote for electors, who are in turn NOT bound to vote accordingly).
After Congress certifies the election, disqualification becomes ... complicated. While the Constitution specifies HOW the president-elect is sworn in, it does NOT specify WHO does the swearing-in; traditionally it is the Chief Justice, but it could just as easily be Rev. Wright. Once certified by Congress on Dec. 13, O becomes President, waiting to Jan. 20 only to mouth the right words and walk into the Oval Office. Removal would require impeachment, which one can reasonably assume isn’t going to happen.
I had gone to the article at WND way back but only read briefly. Since then I had the link below bookmarked so I could keep up with the latest posts. Here it is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2132471/posts?q=1&;page=2402#2402
I believe it’s “hanai” - sort of informal adoption by another family member like grandparent or even by someone other than family.
But the Dunhams had just recently moved to HI so why would they be aware of or follow Hawaiian customs?
What's it mean? I dunno, but it says that it has been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."
Is it to early to start shouting, "Hooray!!!"
How do you know that Donofrio thinks that Obama really has a vault BC showing he was indeed born in HI? He actually thinks that to be so?
“I have boycotted both of their radio shows because of their lack of concern over this potential crisis.”
Maybe Rush, Hannity, et al., are laying low about this because it DOES have the potential of working in our favor. Once they start discussing it, then the MSM would have to come out in force to discredit it — lambaste Donofrio and others like him, etc. Maybe our guys are standing back allowing SCOTUS to do their job with minimal attention. I don’t know; just a thought.
Thanks for that post. It’s an interesting approach to the legal problem and it is precisely how the founders would have looked at it.
Are you related to B Hussein O?
If you’d read all the posts, and the Constitution, you’ll see that this issue was covered clearly.
“Maybe Rush, Hannity, et al., are laying low about this because it DOES have the potential of working in our favor. Once they start discussing it, then the MSM would have to come out in force to discredit it — lambaste Donofrio and others like him, etc. Maybe our guys are standing back allowing SCOTUS to do their job with minimal attention. I don’t know; just a thought.”
Excellent point! I also have been upset with the lack of coverage and have been emailing links and info about this to all of them for over a month. And nothing from them, and especially now with it on the SC docket for action! But you have made an excellent point and you are most likely correct. Thanks for changing my mind about being upset with my very favorite talk show conservatives! :)
Thanks for the ping Lucy.
Pissant and Polarik, you guys and a few other FReepers have been all over this. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching things unfold here. Thanks for staying on this.
I’ve had a couple of other, brief notices of virus within the past 2-3 mos but nothing like last night and hard to make it disappear. There is something up all right. This a.m. FR is very slow, too.
Good post. The Framers were worried about someone like Obama who was a British citizen at birth. They were very specific.
If the Justices blow this off then they might as well go home because The Constitution will be meaningless. The fact that his entire life and schools records are sealed should give the Justices a real clue to what they are dealing with.
Unless Obama is 200 + years old he is not eligible.
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.