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 ...
The point is that Berg’s suit is still active, and it will be Souter’s call to distribute it to the full court for conference.
I realize the case is still active, but I don’t think it’s Souter’s call to distribute it for conference. I believe that any justice can request that a case be added to the “discuss” list for any given conference.
Won't stop anything. Read the 12th Amendment. All the Senate is doing is counting the votes sent by the states. They aren't verifying anything except that the votes were sent.
And where is this report from?
BTW, where is there a Constitutional protection against embarrassment?
Where is your constitutional guarantee to embarass him? The sole constitutional question is if Obama is eligible to be president. If he was born here, then he was. The details of what are on his birth certificate are irrelevant.
Thus making Cheney a laughing stock. I don't think that's how he wants to go out.
This ain’t good...
With their treason charge it's clear that the poster has never even read Article III, Section 3. What makes you think they read Article III, Section 2?
The text of an unconfirmed email is circulating around
that supposedly came from my U.S. congressman that states:
- - -
“On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes.
After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections.
It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States.”
- - -
I have no proof of the authenticity of the email
or of the accuracy of the description of the events.
It almost sounds like that part of the wedding ceremony
where the pastor says, “speak now or forever hold your peace.”
Well the email is accurate. Once the votes are cast objections can be made if at least one senator and one congressman signs on. But then the objections go to the whole House and Senate for a vote, and they must pass both houses for the objection to be implemented. With at least 58 Democratic Senators and something like 250 Democratic Congressmen I'll leave it to you to decide what kind of chance any objection will have.
Thanks, Non.
Is this heard before the “existing” Congress or the “new” congress,
(not that it changes the formula, as far as the numbers go.)
Nope
The new Congress gets sworn in on January 3rd. The review of the electoral votes takes place on the 8th.
Thanks again.
At least he'd know that he had upheld his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and that he bore "true faith and allegiance to the same"
I doubt he'd care much about the hyenas.
I have no link for this and cannot vouch for its authenticity, but I copied it off a blog last night, I believe at Texas Darling:
This is from Linda Starr over at Phil Berg’s site:
You’re asking for a legal document that proves Obama is in fact Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia? I have been telling you all the records were not sealed that prove Obama was legally Soetoro’s child. Some of you have been ridiculing me while I had to keep silent about the evidence. There’s more I can’t discuss here. I’ll tell you as soon as possible.
Anyway, I can now tell you that Phil Berg & his Assistant Lisa acquired Barry’s mother’s divorce papers from Lolo Soetoro in which we see listed 2 children of the parties of the marriage, one over 18 and one under 18. We know Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro only had two children - Barry and Maya. Even in those days, a step child who was not the legal child of one party in a divorce would not be listed as a child of the parties of the marriage. They would either not be lsited at all, or be listed as a child from a previous marriage. Surely you do understand the legal difference? This is a legal certified court record. Like I’ve been telling you, not ALL the records of this man are sealed. When crimes are committed, there are always loose ends one can not go back and tie to prevent getting caught. There’s more he can’t seal before jan 20th, and we are after them.
Let me explain to you now about why we know the PI hired by Corsi found out BO wasn’t born in either of the two hospitals he and his sister claim. His mother is deceased and her hospitalization records would not be sealed. We can’t ask if he was born there, but Cori’s PI could find out his mother was NEVER A PATIENT IN EITHER PLACE! If she wasn’t a patient, then he couldn’t have been born there.
That means he and his sister LIED about where he was born because he was born in Kenya. it also says to me his sister supplied her COLB (she was a foreign birth in Indonesia and registered in Hawaii) for someone to forge. Someone got a copy of her COLB on June 7, 2007. Maybe even she got and altered it for her brother because it isn’t a very good forgery? TADA! The noose is tightening around the lies about BO’s birth and citizenship.
His legal name is STILL Barry Soetoro, and he is a legal citizen of Indonesia since he was born in Kenya. And the big bombshell will be coming out in the next week. I strongly suggest you keep watching Patrick Fitzgerald for the next week. I can’t tell you what will happen, but I can tell you to watch him closely, especially in light of the arrests today of BO’s political buds.
Phil Berg did not pull this suit out of thin air. The circle around BO’s lies is tightening. I believe he is going to be arrested very soon. He can’t very well be sworn in if he’s in jail in Illinois. Do you really think Chief Justice Roberts won’t put a stop to this nightmare? Or Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Kennedy? I know what evidence Phil has acquired. I can’t talk about it, but it’s real.
I wouldn’t be crowing with glee too loudly right now if I were some of you who has hurled insults and cast aspersions on me and Phil’s integrity.
You’ve all had a grand time at our expense, but this is nothing to celebrate proving ourselves right. This is about our Constitution. Why do you really think Clinton and Biden haven’t resigned their senate seats yet? Do you think they know something about the truth the DNC is desperate to hide? Inquiring minds want to know.
He's making too many leaps here.
If I tried to get somebody else's medical records from a hospital, even somebody deceased, would I be able to do so?
If I couldn't get the records, would I be justified in concluding that that person hadn't been a patient there?
Would that justify a further conclusion that the person had been a patient in another country?
These leaps don't follow in any strict logical series.
ping
If there is a real problem, the “Sandra Day O’Conner” approach by SCOTUS would be wait until after the joint session so that Biden would be promoted to President-Elect and not McCain—in “fairness” to the Democratic win.
If the Republicans have the goods, and they want the White House (they may not at this point), they need to act before Cheney opens the envelopes in the joint session, but not before X-mas (too much blowback, and why change the subject in the news just yet).
My bet is to short the market on the last business day before X-mas and wait for the fireworks to start. (BTW if Hillary has the goods, she loses all her leverage over the party (as a whole) after the joint session).
I have no proof of the authenticity of the email or of the accuracy of the description of the events.
Well the email is accurate. Once the votes are cast objections can be made if at least one senator and one congressman signs on. But then the objections go to the whole House and Senate for a vote, and they must pass both houses for the objection to be implemented. With at least 58 Democratic Senators and something like 250 Democratic Congressmen I’ll leave it to you to decide what kind of chance any objection will have.
***
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.
Reasoning as follows:
This would be a classic “Cases and Controversies” action.
U.S.Constitution, Article III, Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials:
” ... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party ...”
Article III gives SCOTUS the jurisdiction ...
The controversy is:
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 - The President:
” ... 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States ...”
AND:
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress:
” ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof ...”
Congress is allowed to legislate the procedures in the Electoral College and they did (USC, Title III, Chapter 1, Section 15).
But, Congress did not provide a method to verify eligibility in the legisalation. Also, Congress cannot arbitrarily adjudicate the definition of “natural born” citizen. Congress would be playing the role of SCOTUS and that is not a power granted to it in the Constitution.
Here, you have two provisions of the Constitution that appear to be at odds with each other under a peculiar set of circumstances and this might be where SCOTUS could step in.
Doubtful.
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.