Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.
??? Her being underage is critical. If she had been a US resident for 5 years after her 14th birthday, and had lived a total of 5 more years in the US (she had, actually she had lived 14 more years), then it would not matter where she gave birth. But she did not live in the US for 5 years after her 14th birthday. So if BHO Jr. was born outside the US, he'd ineligible, an open and shut case. However if he was born in the US, then things are little more complicated, due to his father being a foreign national, and the possibility of his having conflicting loyalties. However IMHO that doesn't matter, and if he was born in the US he is a natural born citizen.
I think you have this figured out.
Which is why our focus is on keeping the burden of proof on Obama to produce the real birth certificate.
Thanks for that heads up about 2nd justices.
Even Donofrio, who, in his enthusiasm, originally believed Thomas’ action was some sort of affirmation, admits that he was mistaken in that belief.
***Then what I wrote was a mistaken belief rather than a mischaracterization.
Here’s something Obama might wish he had not said:
“Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.”
—Barack Hussein Obama
Windflier: Yes, and I don't know where this idea originated, or why.
It is a speculation based on the statement that travel to Pakistan on an American passport in 1981 was prohibited by the State Dept. That may be speculation too. I haven't run across a verification of that travel status.
Didn’t Souter essentially say that, which Obama ignored?
***I’m not sure. There was some sort of deadline in Berg vs. Obama that passed by, but I don’t know how important it is. Judges in general can be real petulant when their orders are not followed, and I imagine the Supremes don’t take too kindly to being ignored.
It is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who swears in the President. He could refuse to swear in Obama. I believe it was the supreme court who ordered Nixon to produce the tapes, but I’m not certain. The supremes have a lot of power. If zer0bama defies them, then we would probably have a bit more than a constitutional crisis on our hands, we’d likely have a civil war.
In Hawaii, which is the state holding some kind of birth certificate for BHO, there are two "birth certificates". One, the Certificate of Live Birth, *is the "hospital birth certificate". Oh not the nice souvenir one that the hospital may give the parents, but the official "long form" birth certificate signed by the mother, the doctor and a hospital official (aka local registrar). The Certification of Live Birth is an extract of information, based on the Certificate's information, contained in the states health records data base. What posted on the Obama, Kos and Fact Check websites was purported to be a "Certification" not a "Certificate.
However the state will issue a Certificate, even after longer than one year, and for a baby not born in Hawai for children who parents meet certain residency requirements. However the Certificate will note that information, while a Certification based on it will not. That's why the Certificate not just the Certification is needed.
I think I’ll go with a new tagline for a bit...
Actually there is lots of evidence. How credibile or authoritative it might be is another question. But there is certainly enough to case a reasonable doubt. The only authoritative evidence that exists is an authentic birth certificate, (long form) on file with some state or other legal entity. (Such a consular record of birth overseas filed with the State Department) that would prove that he is not eligible. That in turn is what he has sent legions of lawyers out to deny us a peek at.
But try pulling that "prove me wrong" claim next time you are required to provide a birth certificate for a job, to join the military or get a security clearance. You will be denied job, entry or clearance. Guaranteed.
Thanks Phil.
I needed a good laugh.
I do not understand how it automatically goes to Biden.
It wouldn’t. Although the VP slot would. The electoral college could pick another Dem. If it was after they voted, and at least one Dem elector was “Unfaithful”, and voted for some Dem other than Obama (Just in case you understand), then the House could pick that other Dem. Only if there were no unfaithful electors, would the House have no choice....to elect McCain. They must pick from the top three electoral vote getters you see. It’s all there in the Constitution for those who choose to read it.
***
This IS NOT as cut and dried as you think ...
FIRST - a Primer
There are 538 Electors in the Electoral College. However, there are MORE than 538 POSSIBLE Electors during the General Election.
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, LET US SUPPOSE THAT ONLY MCCAIN AND OBAMA WERE RUNNING FOR POTUS ...
McCain had 538 Electors pledged to him, if elected and Obama had 538 Electors. THESE WERE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS. Therefore, there were 1076 POSSIBLE Electors.
As currently stands, Obama will win in the Electoral College 365-173, assuming everyone votes as they have pledged.
NOW:
HERE IS WHERE IT GETS MESSY ...
Suppose Obama was DQ’d by SCOTUS - what would happen? ANY NUMBER OF THINGS ...
1. IN ALL STATES, if a candidate is DQ’d, they remove him from the ballot results - AS IF HE HAD NEVER BEEN ON THE BALLOT.
Therefore, through the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine, HIS Electors would be removed from the Electoral College AND the runner-up’s Electors would be installed.
In this case, McCain would then win 538-0, assuming the Electors voted as they had pledged.
What about Biden? WHO KNOWS?
Biden could make a claim that he was validly elected and IF SCOTUS ruled so, then he would be elected VP 365-173, assuming the Electors voted as they had pledged.
In this case, Obama/Biden Electors WHO WERE NOT ALLOWED to vote for Obama WOULD be allowed to vote for Biden.
McCain’s additional Electors who voted for POTUS would sit the VP vote out.
However, OTOH, if Biden was DQ’d by SCOTUS because he ran as a TICKET with Obama, McCain’s additional Electors WOULD vote for VP (Obama/Biden’s WOULD NOT vote) and Palin would be VP 538-0.
CONFUSING? - YOU BETCHA!!!
BTW: THIS IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION - IT WOULD BE “EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL” ORDERED BY SCOTUS. BUT, IT WOULD ELIMINATE AN ELECTION THAT WAS BASD UPON THE PERPETRATION OF A FRAUD.
OR:
2. If Obama was DQ’d, SCOTUS could eliminate the Electoral College vote for this election - since it was tainted. The vote would then go to the House of Representatives for POTUS. This is per the 12th Amendment AND IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
The House then votes as State delegations (1 state, 1 vote), and a simple majority wins.
HOWEVER, per the 12th Amendment, the House can ONLY VOTE FROM A LIST OF NO MORE THAN 3 candidates who received electoral votes. McCain is the ONLY one on the list. McCain wins 50-0.
As for VP:
The Senate votes for VP (1 Senator, 1 vote), and a simple majority wins. This is per the 12th Amendment AND IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Senate votes from a list of the 2 top candidates (Biden and Palin) who received electoral votes. Biden wins something like 58-42.
OR:
3. SCOTUS orders a new election. THIS IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION - IT WOULD BE “EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL”.
Who would?
IIRC two of the plaintiffs in Keye's case are Democratic Electors. They don't have standing?
Leo absolutely has standing in NJ. And in fact, since this little squirrel is applying for OUR POTUS job, any of 300,000,000 We The People have standing to demand he follow OUR Constitution. If that is not so, we no longer have a valid contract with the elected. ... And I can stop paying taxes to the federal government or any other thing they require for which the executive branch would have to pursue me.
ping!
Sheeesh, how could I have forgotten? See what happens when you're in data overload? LOL
Of course, I remember the contention about the travel ban to Pakistan, now.
Someone posted to one (or more) of these threads that the 80's travel ban to Pakistan is a myth. The poster actually had some evidence to back it up, though I don't recall that evidence now.
I do remember them making the point that the US had just given Pakistan a rather large foreign aid package at that time, and were considered an ally, so there wouldn't have been a travel ban for Americans.
No, they're not.
That is why Horowitz went for Keyes throat and not
Donofrio whose case is in the USSC or Bergs case on appeal.
It is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who swears in the President. He could refuse to swear in Obama. I believe it was the supreme court who ordered Nixon to produce the tapes, but I’m not certain. The supremes have a lot of power. If zer0bama defies them, then we would probably have a bit more than a constitutional crisis on our hands, we’d likely have a civil war.
***
ONLY the President has command of the military and law enforcement, to the extent that their leaders are willing to follow him.
However, in the eyes of the People, the Supreme Court has come to be the “de facto” last word on the law. Although we might not always agree with them.
When SCOTUS ruled 8-0 in the United States v. Nixon, they had NO authority or power over law enforcement or the military to enforce their order. Yet, Nixon obeyed ...
He KNEW that the People would rise up AND the pitchforks would come out ...
Let's not be crude, Phil. ;^)
Didn’t Souter essentially say that, which Obama ignored?
***I’m not sure. There was some sort of deadline in Berg vs. Obama that passed by, but I don’t know how important it is. Judges in general can be real petulant when their orders are not followed, and I imagine the Supremes don’t take too kindly to being ignored.
***
In Berg’s case, a response was requested to the application - if the respondent is so inclined. It is the opportunity for the respondent to put forth documentation that supports his reasons why the case SHOULD NOT be heard.
HOWEVER, it IS NOT required that he respond.
The application will then be judged solely on Berg’s application.
HOWEVER, if Berg’s application for a hearing IS granted, Obama CANNOT claim that he DID NOT have an opportunity to respond.
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.