Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supremes to review citizenship arguments-Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices
World Net Daily ^ | 11-21-08 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 11/20/2008 11:46:54 PM PST by STARWISE

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; calero; certifigate; justicethomas; leodonofrio; madeinkenya; mccain; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamatruthfile; obamatruthsquad; scotus; thekenyan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281-299 next last
To: Girlene
It boggles my mind that the NJ Secretary (along with a few other states) would allow a known unqualified candidate, Calero, to be placed on the ballot.

The Constitution does not prohibit a non-citizen or an ineligible citizen from running for POTUS. It only makes him ineligible to take the office.

I believe it is imperative that the SCOTUS ensure the constitutional eligibility of an elected candidate to take the office that the Chief Justice of the Supreme court is mandated to give the oath of office to.

If Roberts is going to swear this guy in, then Roberts has a constitutional obligation to make sure that he is eligible to take the office.

If Roberts doesn't do it, then he has violated HIS oath and he should be removed.

81 posted on 11/21/2008 6:39:36 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Well the founders wrote this in the constitution to ensure that someone from the outside cannot usurp our power. The supremes only establish if the constition is being upheld. If not, and bo is found to not even qualify, it’s the dnc and bo himself who have defrauded the American people.
Supremes just call them out on their fraud.


82 posted on 11/21/2008 6:40:01 AM PST by jackv (Just shakin' my head!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: All
Leo Donofrio explains the premises of his lawsuit - Nov. 18, 2008

83 posted on 11/21/2008 6:40:04 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

LOL and Ping


84 posted on 11/21/2008 6:41:39 AM PST by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: School of Rational Thought
You may be surprised to realize just how logical and common sensical these judges may be if any of these cases rise to a level to where they have to make a ruling.

I believe that more often than not, the supreme court justices have gravitated to the obvious - decisions that clear thinking individual who seek basic truth and justice would agree with.

And in this case, they could very well surprise all of the cynics who espouse all of these fatalistic and defeatist outcomes on a matter that to most of us, is so morally basic and logical.

Pray for the truth the be revealed. There is no question that God's will is in truth.

85 posted on 11/21/2008 6:43:09 AM PST by motoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jackofhearts
It seems strange that the most famous “citizen of the world” never left the continental U.S. after his trip Pakistan.

Hmmmmm...

No congressional boondoggles to Paris or Thailand?

Odd.

86 posted on 11/21/2008 6:45:30 AM PST by null and void (0bama is Gorbachev treating a dying system with the same poison that's killing it in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
The USSC could rule Obama ineligible and then there could be an urgent rush job on a Constitutional amendment.

The record is 3 months (shortest time) for the 26th amendment which gave 18 year olds the right to vote.
87 posted on 11/21/2008 6:45:49 AM PST by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
"Would be an explanation for why he was so reluctant to visit our trope's....Wasn't sure his paper work was in order or afraid that a trip would alert officials to previous trips and passports."

Remember the breach of passport records from last spring? People feared there it some attempt to damage him...but IIRC, it then turned out that the people who "snooped" were in fact Obama-bots. Maybe those folks should be looked at again. Maybe it was a different motivation.

88 posted on 11/21/2008 6:45:55 AM PST by cookcounty ("A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built." ---Governor Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

If that were true, Thomas could’ve simply denied the motion - just as Souter already did. The fact that it was denied once (by Souter, or because of his clerk), and that it is now scheduled for a conference (and there is talk of it being fast-tracked) does NOT support your theory.


89 posted on 11/21/2008 6:46:30 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jackofhearts

Wait a mo’?

Didn’t he go to Kenya to campaign for Odinga?


90 posted on 11/21/2008 6:47:25 AM PST by null and void (0bama is Gorbachev treating a dying system with the same poison that's killing it in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack
“Are you folks that delusional? All the Supremes are going to do is find a way to quietly dismiss this case and move one.”

I will go out on a limb and suggest that the Supremes will rule it's a state issue, not a federal one. I base this on the fact that, outside of the EC meeting, there is no federal election of the president, it's all done at the state level.

I would be very surprised if they demand proof of eligibility. While there is a constitutional eligibility test, the document does not say who has the authority to check up on it and do something. The tenth amendment likewise gives a hint of what direction they are likely to take.

While this is all very frightening, it's pretty entertaining too.

91 posted on 11/21/2008 6:50:03 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jackofhearts

92 posted on 11/21/2008 6:50:04 AM PST by null and void (0bama is Gorbachev treating a dying system with the same poison that's killing it in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cmj328
If it is heard, expect a 9-0 5-4 decision against in favor of Obama if he cannot establish that he is a natural born citizen. The constitution is very clearOUTDATED.

There, fixed your typo.

93 posted on 11/21/2008 6:53:23 AM PST by Zeppelin (Keep on FReepin' on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder

My guess is that in the time it would take to enact a constitutional amendment, this issue would spiral into an even larger investigation regarding other aspects of his life. e.g., a scouring of his autobiographies, his selective service form, and especially his dealings in the 2006 Kenyan national election (very relevant in terms of applying a measure of his “loyalty” to the U.S. in context of concerns raised in the event of his questionable lack of natural born citizenship)


94 posted on 11/21/2008 6:53:26 AM PST by motoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Including Roger Calero in this case makes a lot of sense. How the heck did the Secretary of State allow a foreign born candidate on the ballot? His ineligibility as a presidential candidate is not in question. he also appeared on several other state ballots.

That may be why they are considering it.

They may order states to make sure they put valid candidates on future ballots.

95 posted on 11/21/2008 6:53:39 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
What a mess.

Only if the SC says it is! I just don't think they'll want to step into it and say so. Of course, on mind-reading and Constitutional interpretation I am just a keyboarder.

96 posted on 11/21/2008 6:55:22 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Stop feeding Leftist education systems. Don't let your kids go there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Linda Lingle said they have the certificate, but didn’t say anything else, i.e., the verbiage on it.


97 posted on 11/21/2008 6:56:28 AM PST by MayflowerMadam (We have elected a man ... who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen. - Dollard post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
If they say he may not be POTUS, how are they going to enforce their ruling? And if they can't, do they want THAT precedent?

I believe that the President is sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that Obama cannot be president then I do not see Justice Roberts participating in the swearing in ceremony.

98 posted on 11/21/2008 6:56:38 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

You obviously do not follow the USSC very closely. It is not unusual for a justice to write an opinion as to why he/she disagrees with the court’s decision to not hear a case; you just don’t read about them very often. In this case, any such opinion would receive wide distribution.

The USSC may not hear many cases, but those with previously unresolved constitutional issues almost always get a hearing.


99 posted on 11/21/2008 6:58:34 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Good point.


100 posted on 11/21/2008 6:59:01 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281-299 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson