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 ...
Steve Pigeon is in court and won’t be able to be on until sometime between 9-11 Eastern on the Straight Talk program on Plains Radio Network. http://www.plainsradio.com/
Could you rephrase your question for me? I’ve discussed this with several today so there is a lot to sort through to understand what you’re asking. I’ll try to find the quote you want.
There have been months and months of data entered into these threads with link after link of logical and empirical data on all of this and you now ask for sources...take the time to go back and read the thousands upon thousands of posts across multiple threads - there you will find your sources...these freedom fighters are way beyond catching you up.
Previously you said:
"All cases are not put on the conference list."
I pointed out the quote you supplied with that comment didn't say that. Then you said the document you linked does say it.
So I'm wondering if you can quote that particular passage, where it says all cases are not put on the conference list.
Of course they don't reject the validity, they reject the sufficiency.
From the US State Department:
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.
The Certification of Live Birth is a "short (abstract) version"
The Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is probably not sufficient to prove Natural Born Citizenship,
Why not? Do you have any sources to back up this claim?.
It gets into the requirement for Natural Born Citizenship. If birth in the US is sufficient, then the Certification would also be sufficient. However is parental citizenship is also a factor, then it is not sufficient, because it doesn't show parental citizenship, or place of birth. Birth in the US *is* sufficient for citizenship, via the 14th amendment (with some exceptions, such as children of foreign Ambassadors), but *may not* be sufficient for Natural Born citizenship, when the father was a foreign citizen/subject at the time of birth. But the courts have never adjudicated that. They've said a few things on the subject, but note ruled on it. The only time it really comes up is eligibility for the office of President. Otherwise a citizen is a citizen and natural born status is not required. (There are all sorts of Office holders who are naturalized citizens, the Governator being one of the better known ones).
It is proof of the data on it. That data includes place and time of birth, which is the only data relevant to this issue.
In the spirit of reaching a biblical accord over this issue, I will be generating a response to the credibility of Certifigate with respect to Star Traveler’s post on Alien Abductions...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2165220/posts?page=172#172
Alien Abductions Stopped By the Name of Jesus Christ....
Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:29:27 PM · 172 of 172
Star Traveler to Kevmo
I’ll put the last one first...
You asked — “It’s a simple question. Yes or no.”
Hey, whenever have I answered a simple yes or not... :-)
—
Now for the question you wanted to know about — “Are you of the same opinion that it’s okay to generate cannon fodder for those organizations when we are defending the constitution over Certifigate?”
NOW..., this is the question that pertains to you and some other FReepers, mainly. It’s precisely these types of discussions where there is no evidence, where even President Bush, himself, has refused to prosecute because he has seen there is no evidence of a problem, where our own leaders don’t go down this track, because they know that there’s nothing there — it’s all this — that *actually* gives “cannon fodder” to outsiders...
I would think that someone who says (like I do, too...) — “Let create a state law that vets Presidential Candidate properly, and we’ve got one bill going in Oklahoma right now” — is a statement that is *rational*.
Now, between the idea that all the conservative media outlets, all the Republican leaders, even the Supreme Court, and also the Electoral College, and even Vice President Cheney — want to do nothing to challenge Obama — *that* is definitely cannon fodder — to be sure...
So, if I were you — I would reduce the cannon fodder that you’re giving to others — that can be used against Free Republic.... (that is..., if you’re really concerned about cannon fodder).
—
However, as far as I’m concerned (and in line with *this topic* that we were discussing, before you brought this into this particular thread) — I *do know* that liberals who are against God in our country and want to remove God from everything and don’t want morals from what God says or our Christian heritage here in this country — yes — they *will use* any references to the Bible and/or Jesus’ sayings, and/or any idea that one presents about Creation — all as cannon fodder. That *is* a given — because they are fools, those who deny our Creator God. So, that’s too bad for them.
However, on your part, I don’t see the real basis for what you’re saying and doing — since I have seen no legal and court evidence to back up anything that you’ve said. I see only *strong opinion* — so strong that anyone who disagrees with you is a “troll” or a “disruptor” or whatever other name comes up at the moment ...
Y’all got a big problem there, I would say...
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies
bookmark for later... pulled off to something else for now
Alamo-Girl; star traveler; MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ ; red steel
You said — “In the spirit of reaching a biblical accord over this issue, I will be generating a response to the credibility of Certifigate with respect to Star Traveler’s post on Alien Abductions...”
LOL..., is Obama an alien abductee? :-)
You are so annoying. Why do you persist. If you don’t buy it, then why are you hear and why do you care/
NOW..., this is the question that pertains to you and some other FReepers, mainly. It’s precisely these types of discussions where there is no evidence,
***That is a complete, utter, blatant and massive disregard for the evidence, so much so that it is tantamount to being a troll. Sure, hyperbole is allowed, but we see it time and again, “no evidence” when it’s freeping obvious that there is plenty of evidence or these cases wouldn’t have gotten this far. My analysis showed a 1 in 70Billion chance that this stuff could have lined up this way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=687#687
How is that NO evidence, or evidence of a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, or that this issue reflects negatively on Free Republic? It isn’t. But your alien abduction garbage was openly mocked and disproven by CSICOP when they sent in their own person to get interviewed by Mack and she held up by him as one of the most compelling examples of the phenomena.
where even President Bush, himself, has refused to prosecute because he has seen there is no evidence of a problem, where our own leaders don’t go down this track, because they know that there’s nothing there —
***I see threads where Campos and Ramean — the two INS Agents who were imprisoned for firing on a drug dealing illegal alien— should have been pardoned by Bush, the evidence appears to be overwhelming yet he gets it wrong. Why would Bush want to intervene here when it’s clearly the SCOTUS’s job? It does not appear at all to be his job to prosecute on eligibility of the opposing party’s candidate for president.
it’s all this — that *actually* gives “cannon fodder” to outsiders...
***If any of your arguments would withstand even the slightest scrutiny, maybe your conclusion would bear some weight. But you constantly pull classic fallacies and blatant misrepresentations out of your quiver of reason and so your position is subject to just as much scrutiny. It is my position that someone who thinks Alien Abductions are legitimate scientific endeavor are exactly the kind of people who give cannon fodder to outsiders. It is the a huge sign of hypocrisy for such a person to base his sniping on certifiGate threads on this ridiculous posture that it somehow reflects negatively on Free Republic.
I would think that someone who says (like I do, too...)
“Let create a state law that vets Presidential Candidate properly, and we’ve got one bill going in Oklahoma right now” — is a statement that is *rational*.
***Sure, that’s rational and I’ve even encouraged you in that effort. But it is irrational to think that your effort makes FR look good while ours makes FR look bad. It’s a logical fallacy of assuming mutual exclusivity. Our effort has the potential to knock out the President Elect. TOMORROW. Your effort has the potential to... possibly work in 4 years... after Obama’s damage has been done to the constitution... assuming the democratic controlled congress doesn’t outmaneuver you.
Now, between the idea that all the conservative media outlets, all the Republican leaders, even the Supreme Court, and also the Electoral College, and even Vice President Cheney — want to do nothing to challenge Obama — *that* is definitely cannon fodder — to be sure...
***They’re relying upon the SCOTUS to do their job. And it IS their job.
So, if I were you — I would reduce the cannon fodder that you’re giving to others — that can be used against Free Republic.... (that is..., if you’re really concerned about cannon fodder).
***I’m not that concerned, but you seem to be. Where is your concern about cannon fodder when it comes to advocating Alien Abuctions as a new religion, or whatever is being advocated here :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2165412/posts?page=13#13
Kevmo: “So now there’s an alien abduction caucus? It is becoming a religion?”
Star Traveler: There’s no doubt about it. ... It’s a good topic to go over..., without a doubt...
—
However, as far as I’m concerned ... I *do know* that liberals who are against God in our country and want to remove God from everything and don’t want morals from what God says or our Christian heritage here in this country — yes — they *will use* any references to the Bible and/or Jesus’ sayings, and/or any idea that one presents about Creation — all as cannon fodder. That *is* a given — because they are fools, those who deny our Creator God. So, that’s too bad for them.
***Nothing really controversial here, for this Pro-God forum.
However, on your part, I don’t see the real basis for what you’re saying and doing — since I have seen no legal and court evidence to back up anything that you’ve said.
***Again you’re back to the NO evidence thing. It is a hyperbolic straw argument, the argument of a CoLB troll.
I see only *strong opinion* — so strong that anyone who disagrees with you is a “troll” or a “disruptor” or whatever other name comes up at the moment ...
***I disagree with plenty of others on the CoLB topics without calling them a troll. Your own argumentation even on this one post is evidence of trollhood.
Okay, I gottcha. No, there is not a specific sentence in the document that says, “All cases are not put on the conference list.”
My comment of, “Read the document at the source provided. It does say that.” was intended to imply that the document taken as a whole does imply that only cases on the discuss list are considered at conference, the rest are automatically denied.
Steve Pigeon did not make it on the program tonight. Only ten minutes left, so doubt he will be on. Maybe tomorrow night with Ed and Caren.
It’s obvious you will just continue twisting anything I say so further responses on this subject will be useless.
Well said. I agree. Goodnight, sweet dreams.
The certification of live birth that Obama posted and various made available to media outlets have all of those characteristics.
It gets into the requirement for Natural Born Citizenship. If birth in the US is sufficient, then the Certification would also be sufficient. However is parental citizenship is also a factor, then it is not sufficient, because it doesn't show parental citizenship, or place of birth. Birth in the US *is* sufficient for citizenship, via the 14th amendment
It is sufficient for both. Natural born citizenship refers to citizenship by virtue of birth. The 14th Amendment resolves that definitively.
There is a reason no one challanged Chester A. Authur's eligibility for the office on the grounds that his father was not a citizen, which was well known and public knowledge.
Yes, I know. Having your conspiracy theories debunked can be very annoying.
Keep it up mlo! Rational conservatives like us cannot let our movement get taken over by tinfoil hat wearing moonbats.
On what basis is it "their job"?
There is no duly-constituted authority which has requested or required Obama to do what you want.
The Supreme Court is not a free-ranging Committee of Public Safety. It's not like the French Cour de Cassation, which (descended from the revolutionary CPS) has the very powers you want the USSC to exercise.
There is no statute, no case law, and no person with standing which requires production of documents of a President-Elect.
Examples include:
1) The claim that Obama spent millions of dollars on getting birther lawsuits dismissed.
2) The claim that the certification of live birth that Obama made available to some media outlets is not accepted by the state department as proof of US birth.
3) The claim that Hawaii doesn't accept the certification of live birth as proof of Hawaiian birth.
4) The claim that babies born overseas could get a Hawaiian birth certificate in 1961.
There is not a single shred of evidence to back up claim 1. Claims 2-4 can be prove false with a relatively simple search over the internet. Yet many freepers accept all of the above claims as if they were gospel truth.
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.