BTW, for those not watching, Dr. Orly's "Lightfoot v Bowen" is being re-submitted.
Separately, almost under the radar, "Keyes v Bowen" is still pending at the California Supreme Court.
1 posted on
12/18/2008 8:27:13 AM PST by
BP2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: BP2; pissant
2 posted on
12/18/2008 8:29:22 AM PST by
wastedyears
("Life's tough... It's even tougher if you're stupid." - John Wayne)
To: STARWISE; LucyT; BonRad; ckilmer; hoosiermama; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; ...
3 posted on
12/18/2008 8:30:39 AM PST by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
To: BP2
4 posted on
12/18/2008 8:32:02 AM PST by
Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
To: BP2
5 posted on
12/18/2008 8:32:02 AM PST by
Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
To: BP2
6 posted on
12/18/2008 8:32:02 AM PST by
Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
To: BP2
...surprised Essence would touch this...they’re a black interest magazine.
To: BP2
8 posted on
12/18/2008 8:33:33 AM PST by
Eye of Unk
(Americans should lead America, its the right way.)
To: BP2
I saw the BC matter on the front page of a tabloid....something like ‘New of The Globe’ or one of those rags. Seems to me someone is trying to ‘cheapen’ and make this into a ‘conspiracy theory’. JMO.
To: BP2
Surprising;y fair article.
11 posted on
12/18/2008 8:34:38 AM PST by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: BP2; ZULU; Clintonfatigued; romanesq; ladyvet; oswegodeee; freekitty; justiceseeker93; ...
Corruption thy name is Osama Obama!
To: BP2
Zero will take the heat...He’s got more teflon on him than John Gotti ever did.
16 posted on
12/18/2008 8:40:07 AM PST by
LottieDah
(If only those who speak so eloquently on the rights of animals would do so on behalf of the unborn.)
To: BP2
If Obama could provide valid, legal proof of birth qualification, he would have. A long while back. He has spent untold sums of money and attorney hours SUPPRESSING any demand that he provide proof of his eligibility.
He is in no position to cause more concern about his being the president. So much dislike and anxiety about his ideology, his anti-American, criminal and terrorist associations, and his blatant arrogance based on an empty suit, have a growing number of Americans very concerned about his actual agenda for America.
Like ANY OTHER PERSON, he should be made to prove his eligibility. Just like you or I would have to.
17 posted on
12/18/2008 8:41:06 AM PST by
EagleUSA
To: BP2
I could not have gotten a security clearance without a birth certificate and this POS does not need to produce on to become president.
18 posted on
12/18/2008 8:41:40 AM PST by
Piquaboy
(22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
To: BP2
“If he was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural born citizen.”
Keyes needs to get that straightened out. This is why I think Obama has been doing the song and dance around not releasing his birth certificate. All the attention is being paid to where he was born, and while this does in fact have bearing on the requirement issue, it isn’t the only thing... Astroturfed into the office of the president of the united states.
23 posted on
12/18/2008 9:01:03 AM PST by
nominal
To: BP2
Obama received dual citizenship since his father was a Kenyan-born national, which arguably doesn't qualify him as a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Perfect in its simplicity.
25 posted on
12/18/2008 9:06:57 AM PST by
so_real
To: BP2
Is that 12 are 15 posters it's heating up among!!!!LOL
26 posted on
12/18/2008 9:12:05 AM PST by
org.whodat
(Conservatives don't vote for Bailouts for Super-Rich Bankers! Republicans do!)
To: BP2
no article II? then no amendment 16...
28 posted on
12/18/2008 9:26:02 AM PST by
sten
To: BP2
Good article. I predict by the time we reach the end of Obama’s first term, he will make Clinton look pristine. He’s sure off to a great start.
29 posted on
12/18/2008 9:33:10 AM PST by
Vicki
(Washington State where anyone can vote .... illegals, non-residents, dead people, dogs, felons)
To: BP2
30 posted on
12/18/2008 9:34:51 AM PST by
sionnsar
(Iran Azadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY)|http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com/|RCongressIn2Years)
To: BP2
The problem with this is that on Obama’s inauguration day (of January 20th), the Supreme Court will declare any of these cases moot and dismiss them all. That’s because on the Congress will have the ability to remove Obama from office (by impeachment and conviction). And we all know that a predominantly Democrat Congress will never do that (just look at Clinton...).
Also, since it’s a states rights issue in regards to any of the states and the Secretaries of State (and them vetting the candidates), I doubt the Supreme Court will intervene into that states rights issue.
The only solution is for people to correct the *defective vetting process* that allowed Obama to get into office the way he is, by passing state laws to require proof from a candidate before being placed on the ballot. That’s how this thing needs to be corrected.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson