Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
This is the perfect Obama definition of being “open and transparent”. Fight showing your public record and personal history using every legal ploy possible.
There is nothing that is going to hurt this guys. Everything will be considered a "Vast White-wing Conspiracy". No matter what you come up with he will be the victim.
~~PING!
I think so, too. Note also that the two appeals Kennedy turned down are related to Berg. That may have limited their chances since the Court has turned him down already.
We’ll really know something is ‘up’ when Congress attempts to ‘clarify’ the meaning of “natural-born” citizen after the inauguration. If that happens you’ll know that there IS something hidden in that vault in Honolulu.
You asked — “What will happen later when we find out it’s true, the Obamination was ineligible to serve ... what are these judges going to say then ?”
Well, probably something like, you should have had a law that specified the “vetting process” and required a candidate to verify his qualification under the Constitution before putting him on the ballot and before he won the election...
—
And so..., that brings up what people should do, who are concerned about this kind of issue. Put state laws on the books that vet candidate or else they cannot be legally placed on the ballot.
That’s the solution to the problem.
Bump that. Sad, but true.
Well jolly fine then. Why don’t they take a case and show us all how we are all “kooks” by proving it...legally...beyond any reasonable doubt? They don’t know any more than the rest of us because he has NOT provided his Birth Certificate! The stain of it all if they continue to give the Constitution the middle finger will be irreparable.
Please provide the link to the certified long form copy of the Obamafuehrer’s BC that shows what hospital he was born in and what doctor delivered him.
I think the jury is still out on this one .... not that I'm a conspiracy advocate ....
I was chided on this site for wanting the Court to act like they did in Roe v. Wade, like activists. I think that may be it. I'm not clear on all the minutia of the law but I think SCOTUS needs the state legislatures to draw up laws concerning the procedures of qualifying candidates.
You asked — “Is it over?”
Yep, it’s over, as far as Obama is concerned.
The *real problem* is not over, though, and that will require putting laws on the books of the various states to vet candidates as to whether they are qualified under the Constitution and not allow them to be legally placed on the ballot without that proof.
I’m afraid that too many people are more concerned about Obama and less concerned about “this process*. And if that’s the case, everyone will simply “go away” and ignore the “process” that needs to be corrected — because they were *really* only after Obama in the first place...
So they can challenge after Congress confirms. They can try to get someone in Congress to challenge it.
We might have lost this battle, but we need both Congress and state legislatures to implement verification checks to prevent this again, and possibly catch Obama in 2012.
It wouldn’t take very many states checking to encourage the major parties to check themselves.
And it would be better to have both states and congress check, because it’s less likely that both would accept a forgery.
No.
The problem is - it won’t do any good now ... maybe the next presidential election it will ....
You said — “Or, there could genuinely be nothing to this stuff, as many of us have said for some time. Nahh, that couldn’t be it. USSC has to be corrupt.”
LOL..., you couldn’t be talking about genuine FReepers being considered kooks or conspiracy minded, could you? :-)
Naahhh..., no one would ever get that idea...
You said — “SCOTUS needs to put out a clear and concise statement as to why they are doing this. If the people of this country have questions, by the millions, they deserve an answer. Either that or forget our Constitution and the laws.”
They don’t do that, so why should they start — right now — for this particular issue?
Again, it all sifts down to this: A 1961 birth certificate exists, so say the Hawaii state officials—and it has been sealed. Obama refuses to make it public. What legitimate reason could there be?
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.