Posted on 01/22/2009 7:01:08 AM PST by dascallie
So, it is absolutely essential that Obama meet the requirement of having taken the oath prescribed by the Constitution, but you don't believe that there is a similar absolute requirement that he be a natural-born citizen? By what logic is Obama's authority in question if he doesn't take the oath, but that authority is not in question if he is not a natural-born citizen?
Please don't confuse the issue by telling me what the courts are doing. We need to be talking about what the courts should be doing.
Nope, not true. Every case sent to the Supreme Court has been denied at the first opportunity. The only ones that haven't been YET, are still waiting for conference. Conference is when they decide to take or deny cases.
The reason is that, under Supreme Court Rule 15.5, the date when they can be distributed for conference has not arrived yet. When that day arrives, they will be distributed for conference and promptly denied.
The reason is that, under Supreme Court Rule 15.5, the date when they can be distributed for conference has not arrived yet. When that day arrives, they will be distributed for conference and promptly denied.
Thank you for just repeating what I said. You can go figure it out. The cases are still alive.
Enjoy.
Nobody is saying that. Of course he has to be a natural born citizen. The constitution explicitly says so. And he is. "Please don't confuse the issue by telling me what the courts are doing. We need to be talking about what the courts should be doing."
Sometimes the discussion turns to what the courts are doing. Answering that isn't confusing the issue. As to what they should do, I'd say that so far they've behaved correctly.
Not quite the same. You are trying to imply that the reason has to do with merit. I'm saying the reason is that the procedure just hasn't reached the denial stage yet. Two different things.
Maybe not. New cases are coming as well. A new one was just filed in NJ and another from WA will be at SCOTUS soon.
It seems the DNC talking points get distributed and regurgitated here by about 11 am EST. The usual suspects.
There is a requirement that he be a natural-born citizen. There is no requirement that he provide any particular document to any one who asks for it. The people who had the constitutional power to decide if he was eligible-- the House and Senate when they met in joint session to count the electoral votes-- decided unanimously that he was a natural-born citizen. In my opinion (informed by 30 years as an appellate lawyer), no court is going to re-visit that issue, at least unless someone comes up with smoking-gun evidence that he was not born in Hawaii (as distinguished from speculation, or claims that the documents he has provided are not good enough).
You and LL seem to post the same things. The cases are still alive at SCOTUS and more are coming. Enjoy.
Precisely. Thank you for putting it better than I do.
I would only add that in my opinion the documentation we have is enough to prove the facts of his birth, in any reasonable way.
It's always possible to make up stories about forgery and conspiracies. Criminal defendents do it every day. In real life the existing documentation is enough.
Please ping me when one of the cases gets granted.
I don’t think Obama could do this. As far as I know, at least for now, we still have separation of power in the US.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We still have a constitution, it just hasn’t been followed for many, many years. Face it, we are screwed.
FWIW, the first President ever born in a Hospital was Jimmy Carter. So essentially Jimmy Carter is the first president in History who could actually produce any kind of document proving he was a Natural Born Citizen.
There is no requirement that anyone prove they are a natural born citizen in order to be President. Even if the Birth Certificate from Hawaii is a fake, it does not prove that Hussein is not a natural born citizen.
These lawsuits are a complete waste of time. Obama has been sworn in as President and the only way he can be removed is by an order of Impeachment. That ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.
So if you want to pretend that some idiot judge is going to agree with one of these idiotic lawsuits and issue an order proclaiming that Obama is not eligible to be president and if you think there is anyone on this planet who will carry out that order and remove him from the White House, then you are living on another planet.
Unless? Isn't it true that no court will ever consider an issue unless the party bringing the complaint has standing and the issue is deemed relevant?
If you were a Supreme Court Justice and a defendant who was convicted of a felony enacted by legislation signed by Obama, and that defendant submits to the Court a decent forgery of a Kenyan birth record indicating that Obama did not meet the eligibility requirements, how would you rule?
Would a person convicted as I described have standing to challenge the validity of the law?
Would you rule the law invalid if Obama were proved not to be a natural-born citizen?
Would you just arbitrarily rule that the Kenyan document is a forgery or would there be an obligation to examine it?
If the examination of the document did not permit determination of its validity, would the Court enforce orders to present other documents, such as those sealed in Hawaii, that could provide a basis for making a decision?
Or would you just rule that some provisions of the Constitution are more important than others and let the conviction stand?
still, a big mistake nonetheless...
One possible outcome might be to invoke the enrolled bill doctrine, which the Supreme Court used to avoid ruling on claims that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified.
Before or after I stopped laughing?
Would a person convicted as I described have standing to challenge the validity of the law?
Anyone convicted of any law has standing to challenge that law.
Would you rule the law invalid if Obama were proved not to be a natural-born citizen?
Can you prove that any president prior to Jimmy Carter was a "natural born citizen"? He was the first president born in a hospital. Can this same person challenge a law signed by Abraham Lincoln if he can prove he was born in Canada? How about a law signed by Warren Harding? Does anyone know where he was born? Can anybody prove it?
Would you just arbitrarily rule that the Kenyan document is a forgery or would there be an obligation to examine it?
I would not even look at it. I could care less if it were a forgery or some kind of government issued document. Obama has been sworn in as President. That makes him the President. That is the reality of this whole idiotic line of lawsuits.
If the examination of the document did not permit determination of its validity, would the Court enforce orders to present other documents, such as those sealed in Hawaii, that could provide a basis for making a decision?
No. They are not about to undo the election of Obama. Get over it.
Or would you just rule that some provisions of the Constitution are more important than others and let the conviction stand?
Call me when you can prove the natural born status of every president prior to Carter. The People of the United States, the Electors, the Congress and the Supreme court have all declared Obama to be the president. He does not have to prove at this point that he is eligible to serve. He has been determined by each of the above bodies to be eligible.
There is not a court in this country that is going to undo that, even if someone were to produce absolutely irrefutable evidence that he was born in Kenya. For all intents and purposes he IS a Natural Born Citizen.
It seems to me that you are assuming that which you are claiming. You assume that the Supreme Court will never act and thus conclude that they will not act.
The "abundance of caution" that the White House counsel used as justification for Obama taking the oath a second time is an indication that the legitimacy of Presidential acts is not a given.
There was a lot of cynicism during the Watergate era regarding whether the Supreme Court would order the President to turn over tapes which Nixon himself created in the Oval Office. The Supreme Court decided that the President is not above the law and the resignation of Nixon followed soon thereafter.
Clinton faced a similar problem when the Supreme Court ruled that Paula Jones' case could proceed. Clinton's perjury before a grand jury should have resulted in a successful impeachment, though the Democrats decided that it was only perjury about sex and shouldn't count.
Obama's problem will be different in that no impeachment will be necessary if the Supreme Court rules that he is not eligible to be President and thus is not President. Just as the Senate should have removed Clinton from office and did not, it may be that the Supreme Court will refuse to do its job. But that won't change what they are empowered to do; nor will it change what they SHOULD do.
I am not assuming anything. I KNOW they won't touch this.
There was a lot of cynicism during the Watergate era regarding whether the Supreme Court would order the President to turn over tapes which Nixon himself created in the Oval Office.
The Supreme Court ordered him to turn it over. He could have refused, but he knew that if he disobeyed a direct order from the Supreme Court he would be impeached. The Supreme Court could not remove him from office. That is the sole prerogative of the Congress.
Obama's problem will be different in that no impeachment will be necessary if the Supreme Court rules that he is not eligible to be President and thus is not President.
I take it that you are neither a student of constitutional law nor a Lawyer. The Supreme Court cannot remove Obama from office. Get over it.
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.