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 ...
But, showing a flash of the old, off-message Dean, the outgoing chairman couldn’t help but crack wise about just one of the new president’s challenges.
“You gotta hand it to Blagojevich,” said Dean of the embattled Illinois governor’s brazen appointment of Roland Burris to succeed Obama in the Senate. “What a maneuver! What a maneuver! When his back was against the wall, he outsmarted a lot of people.”
LOL
Please try to keep up, that answer was based on the assumption that the Court ruled that he was not a natural born citizen. (He probably can't write legibly either, but that's not a disqualification. :) )
All people have is a suspicion that he was born somewhere else, no proof.
That couldn't have anything to do with his not providing a certified copy of his long form birth certificate, could it. Reasonable suspicion is enough to get further evidence. Proof is not needed to get an order to produce the evidence. It's what search warrants are about.
Nothing except for that I trust that the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney (R) and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) would have checked the credentials and eligbilty of Freshman Senators in January of 2005 when Obama entered the Senate.
However, if you have evidence that Cheney and Frist did not do their due diligence of requiring that freshman Senators show their credentials and eligibility, I would like to see that evidence.
Sure Pakistan may have been a dangerous place in 1981. However, the BC Truthers are not saying that Obama visited a dangerous place in 1981. Instead, they are saying that Obama visited Pakistan when it was against the law for Americans to go there.
Why not just say "Obama visited a dangerous country in 1981?"
Why is it they are stating an outright lie regarding the legality of travel to Pakistan in 1981?
Thanks!
It's rare that we don't have talk radio on our side,and I don't know why.
If you believe that then you, sir, are a damned fool.
Non, if you were a person that supports the US Constitution and have all your marbles you would in fact be supporting the COLB issue.
So that leaves you with another out.
This issue is more important than 2nd amendment rights.
ALL information indicates there is a problem for fearless leader concerning this.
By not supporting the issue you are supporting Obama and not the US Constitution.
Very well could be, excellent catch.
For sure!
Can the people find out how Obama got his passport? It seems to me that the Chief Justice, given the game of cat and mouse he’s been playing on this issue, should take an interest in this.
I read that he only got a passport when he became a senator a few years ago. Maybe my memory is faulty.
Well, you go to the post office with a couple of pictures of yourself and a copy of your birth certificate. You fill out the form and give it to the clerk behind the counter with the pictures and the document and whatever the fee is. The clerk sends it off to the processing center and about 2 months later your passport arrives in the mail.
On the first page of my final report, I listed 4(A) & 4(B) as the most relevant tenets, so it's also there for posterity.
However, if you see any other parts of the USC, please post them here.
He also needed a passport in 1981 to travel to Pakistan. The question is, "Was that passport Indonesian?"
Any time you support the constitution and object to a Presidential candidate hiding almost every aspect about his life, guilt is unnecessary, IMHO.
You are correct. From now on, every presidential candidate must show proof when he or she registers to run. It seems, however, that the definition of natural is not universally agreed upon. I find it outrageous that Congress passed a resolution saying that McCain was natural born! What’s next, a resolution saying that Arnold is natural born?
The politicians and talk show hosts who shrink from this issue are sell-outs and fools.
Do you think a senator would have done it this way? I believe it is possible, even likely, that there is a special procedure for senators.
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.