Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
President Reagan selling F-16’s to Pakistan in 1981.
Why would he do that?
This particular asshat seems to love the argument from silence fallacy. Notice how it hasn’t even acknowledged that none of the so far conferenced cases have been thrown out, just the stays were denied?
Glad to see me? :-)
"Yes, of course it is possible. For me, all 0bama would have to do is waive any right to privacy and direct the State of Hawaii to send certified (raised seal) copies of his original birth certificate to anyone who pays whatever the State's going fee is. So long as those certificates (mailed to several interested people) were all the same, raised no questions from people who have testified in court as experts in document authentication, and showed that he was born in Hawaii, I would be okay with it. I don't think the Framers would be okay with it, but I would."
Well I'm glad that there is something that would work for you. Thanks for providing that. I suspect that many people wouldn't be satisfied no matter what he produced, because at root they are really just rationalizing a way to not accept he won the election.
Personally I don't need to rationalize anything. Sometimes things happen I don't like. Obama winning is one of them. I'm not willing to lie to myself about it, or anything else.
"Tell me I'm being unreasonable."
Well, that is a pretty demanding prescription you must admit.
Why can't it be enough that he releases a copy of the birth certificate and the state of Hawaii confirms that they have the original records the certificate is based on?
Ineligibility under Art II, Section 1 of the Constitution. In effect he would never have been President, since he was and is ineligible to the office.
I believe that an arrest for fraud would require formal charges by the US attorney. Although nothing would stop the Court from issuing an arrest warrant. They don't normally do that, but nothing would stop them from doing it if they wanted to.
The markets aren't uncertain about this.
On what grounds?
"Ineligibility under Art II, Section 1 of the Constitution."
That's not an answer. On what grounds is he illegible? All people have is a suspicion that he was born somewhere else, no proof.
Yes, facts are what they are, not what we wish them to be.
You are assuming that they are not just different branches of the Chicago Crime Family. Hillary grew up in a Chicago Suburb, between Chicago proper and O'Hare Airport.
But citizenship and natural born citizenship are not the same thing. Plus US Nationals who are not citizens also use US Passports.
Same reason Nixon sold F-14 Tomcats to Iran.
And your evidence that they even asked for proof of citizenship is?
And where on the Passport does it specify that one is natural born citizen?
I corrected some bad typing on the blog. 8-u
While I don't know if the state department had a travel ban in place for Pakistan in 1981, or any part of it, it would not be completely incompatible with us supplying weapons to them.
A country can be very dangerous, and still an allie or an enemy of an an enemy, which is pretty what Pakistan was in 1981. They were either still under marshal law, or had just come out of it in 1981.
While I don't know if the state department had a travel ban in place for Pakistan in 1981, or any part of it, it would not be completely incompatible with us supplying weapons to them.
A country can be very dangerous, and still an allie or an enemy of an an enemy, which is pretty what Pakistan was in 1981. They were either still under marshal law, or had just come out of it in 1981.
This is probably a stupid question but why? Is it because Constitutional requirements have now been violated?
On what grounds is he illegible?
***Well, I can’t read him.
Have you been following Howard Dean lately ....He resigned shortly after being named in the Berg lawsuit and is having NOTHING to do with the DNC.
Fox commentator asked what’s going on when the new DNC chair was install.He was absent...
Other said that he had been quoted as saying he purposely missed the ceramony....was half way around the world. First commented “What happened? What did he do wrong?”
(Maybe it wasn’t him, it was the DNC...)
That’s very interesting. hmmmmmmm
Because we don't trust *him*. He needs to be removed from the "chain of custody" of any documentation. Plus the Birth Certificate, that he (supposedly) has released is not sufficient anyway to prove natural born citizenship. If he released a copy of his "long form" certificate, with raised seal, that would be the "original record", or at least a certified copy thereof, that would be sufficient, but he would still need, for maximum credibility, to be out of the "chain of custody".
Heck they have more concern for chain of custody of my vial of urine when I go in for my random drug test, required because I'm an employee of a company with US Government contracts.
I have, starting when I was a USAF officer, then as a contractor, been doing it for several decades now. They don't trust you at all. First they notify you a very short time before the sample is to be obtained. Then they make sure you aren't carrying a vial or bottle of "clean" urine, when you go in, and they grab the cup as soon as you open the door to the head/latrine/bathroom. You have to sign that it is yours as does the nurse who takes custody and sends it to the lab.
I really don't think it's asking much that BHO have the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics send a certified copy of his long form birth certificate to a court.
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.