Posted on 12/11/2008 8:27:56 AM PST by ckilmer
The U.S. Supreme Court has turned aside a request to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, in a vote scheduled for Monday, until Barack Obama documents his eligibility for the office under the Constitution's requirement that presidents must be "natural born" citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Not quite, it just means she lied about where he was born. Not that he was born in Kenya. It could have been Boston, but there would be no need to hide that, Canada or Cuba.
can’t very well be sworn in if he’s in jail in Illinois
Sure he could be. There's no requirement that the President not be a criminal. (good thing too, or we'd have had an awful lot of disqualifications over the years). Also no requirement that it be done in DC or by the Chief (or any) Justice. He could have the Judge who ordered his arrest come in and swear him in. Or he could just sign the oath of office. (The Oath itself *IS* required by the Constitution.) (LBJ was sworn in on Air Force One sitting on the ground at Dallas Love Field by Federal District Judge Sarah Hughes, who was later to be the original judge in Roe v. Wade.)
She also found in the "Cruel and unusall punishment" probhibition of the 8th amendment, the power for the Federal Judiciary to run local (county) jails.
In reality, the only one he must convince of his legitimacy to be President is the Supreme Court Justice (Roberts) who must administer the constitutional oath to him -- without violating the Justice's own oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
IF 0bama is constitutionally qualified to be President, and wants to minimize any embarrassment, he should present his Vault Birth Certificate to the Chief Justice -- alone, and in confidence.
If, having seen his proof, Roberts vouches for him, then I am satisfied -- and so is the Constitution -- and so should you be.
OTOH, if 0bama is unable -- or unwilling -- to present his bona fides to even a single Justice of the USSC, then he should not be administered the oath, and should stand ready for charges of massive fraud against the Constitution and upon the people who voted for him.
(Still living down to your FRName, I see...)
“The sole constitutional question is if Obama is eligible to be president. If he was born here, then he was.” Nothing but pure opinion from you. You’ll understand if some of us ignore your bloviating and await a SCOTUS ruling on the issue.
Yeah - but after the House and Senate vote, I believe that a GOP Congressman or GOP Senator (if they have the balls) could go across the street and file an emergency appeal with SCOTUS.
Doubtful.
***
Ya never know - some GOP Senator who has already stood for his last election and is planning on retiring anyway after his current term ...
Thanks, LucyT
Ping.
For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. in 2008 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a U. S. citizen, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was a foreigner. His birth certificate is only relevant to answer the question, “what does Obama have to hide?”
http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm
Bump for the thread and thanks for the Ping LucyT. Very much appreciated.
You’re welcome, Aurorales.
But opinion based on U.S. law and Supreme Court precedent. As opposed to your opinion which is based of...what, I don't know. So you'll understand if I hold your bloviating in the low regards it deserves.
...and await a SCOTUS ruling on the issue.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past. If your waiting for the current court to take up your case then I predict you're in for disappointment. Not that it'll stop you from dreaming.
The court doesn't seem to be in doubt about his qualifications.
bttt
If that were the case, they would not have agreed to take these cases.
Show us all the evidence you have to support your above statement.
"In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795."
For those paying attention, John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, addressed the reason for Constitutional restrictions on eligibility to George Washington regarding 'divided loyalties'. Most following this issue have read it posted on these threads.
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"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;"
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, as in both] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Regardless of born in HI or in Kenya, Obama's father was a British subject and as Obama has admitted, he was also a British citizen at birth through his father. That is divided loyalty and he does not have two parents who were American citizens.
Agitprops like nonsequitur working FreeRepublic for the negation of the Constitution by default must be addressed with the facts, but not indulged with exchanges ad infinitum. Constantly engaging these pricks (little nettles, nothing more) gives them credulity they do not deserve and have not earned.
ping ... do you have the quote handy from Jay to Washington?
At the risk of stating the obvious the court had not agreed to take a single one of these cases so far.
If that were the case, they would not have agreed to take even consider these cases. (Nit-picking technical correction...)
Show us all the evidence you have to support your above statement.
They don't have a choice in the matter. Anyone can file with the court and they then have to go though the process of reviewing and either accepting or rejecting.
You still have yet to show us all the any evidence you have to support your above statement.
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.