Posted on 11/28/2008 12:57:36 PM PST by jay1949
The question of Barack Obama’s citizenship, and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, has become the election-year issue that will not die. Quite a few Obama opponents are holding on to the eligibility issue as the last chance to keep him out of the White House. They have placed their faith in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, and particularly the Berg lawsuit; but it will turn out that such faith is misplaced.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericansentinel.com ...
It only takes four Justices in Conference on the 5th to vote in favor of fully hearing the case. I believe at least five will vote to hear the case.
Why wouldn’t the VP for that party just move up?
Here's the link: Key Electoral College Dates and Events
"January 8, 2009 - Counting Electoral Votes in Congress: Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date)."
‘Fully hearing the case’ would take way more time than 8 days, when the electoral college meets, right?
I agree in principle, but that sort of "let the chips fall where they may" attitude assumes that the Court cares more about the law than about politically acceptable results. That's most likely a 5-4 proposition these days.
Yes. From what I can make out, Granny was the only decent one of the whole bunch.
I’ll bet you two nickles: one, that you’re wrong on this point; and two, that we’ll never find out who is right.
I've read through the Constitution several times, and I can't find anything about "tickets".
Please provide a citation for your claim that Joseph Biden, born in Scranton, Pennsylvania after the ratification of the Constitution by nine states, having attained the age of 35 and for the past fourteen years a resident of Delaware is ineligible to the office of Vice-President of the United States.
A long earlier thread actually had a facsimile of her COLB from Hawaii.
And now I’ve duplicated your link. Oy!
It is the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution. This Obama ineligibility challenge will not go away. We The People will speak.
No, it didn't, but by ruling on a nonjusticeable political question, which in any event was not ripe, it subverted the procedures CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY placed in the Constitution for dealing with contigencies such as those that arose in Florida in November 2000.
I read the posts and saw no reference to SCOTUS overturning an election.
Never. This article is an attempt to pressure the Supreme Nine not to get involved. I'm afraid the Justices might be cowardly enough not to get involved; they don't want to be called "racists" and hear references to "Bush v. Gore II."
That's why I'm glad to hear calls for endless lawsuits, regarding Obama's birth, challenging every decision he makes. Someone will eventually have standing and then the federal courts, likely including the SCOTUS, would have to rule on the merits. If the Justices feel such a ruling is inevitable, they might decide it should be made sooner rather than later.
So what do we do about it then? Sit back and take it like a bunch of spineless sheep, or make our Founding Fathers proud?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
YOU GO GUY!!!
Who the hell said that?????? The supreme coutr has an obligation to the law- not to people's opinions.
It corrected the flagrantly political error of the Florida Supreme Court, which is one of the things that the Constitution dictates it should do.
The action by the Florida Supreme Court made the matter justiciable. It’s members are judges. When judges act the matter becomes justiciable.
The interference was by the Florida Supreme Court, something for which it is notorious, not by SCOTUS, which only corrected the interference to comport with the clear language of the Constitution.
There are many arguments that the framers meant exactly the opposite of "English law."
The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.”
According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. America’s Founders rejected this doctrine.
The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship.
“This article is an attempt to pressure the Supreme Nine not to get involved.” I am flattered that you think that the Supreme Court would pay any attention to my post; I suspect that they will not.
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.