Posted on 01/22/2009 7:01:08 AM PST by dascallie
How is this possible? Orly Taitz has a scheduled conference hearing for Jan23, by Justice Roberts...it has disappeared from the docket.
posted by Shestheone
IP: 72.224.141.133
Jan 22nd, 2009 - 7:38 AM Re: America's finest ! Dr Orly Taitz- Just sent lots of subpeona 's out _ I hope she sees my future
Ah, but her cases are no longer on the docket - bo has struck. All elgibility cases have disappeared. Please call and write to our Supreme Court and demand that they put the elgibility cases back on the docket. Visit scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com too and leave feedback.
Obama’s eligibility question has been rendered moot by the fact that he has been sworn into the office. The only way to remove him now is by the process of impeachment.
Even if the courts decided today he was not legally eligible, they do not have the power to remove him from office. Only the Senate has that power and they only have that power if presented with a bill of impeachment from the house.
It is out of the hands of any court at this point.
***
Not necessarily so ... these are uncharted waters here governed by a Constitution that was written without forseeing a potential situation like this ...
If (and I am specifying IF) SCOTUS took one of these challenge petitions, they MIGHT determine that ONLY a constitutionally eligible person can enter into the office as POTUS.
If they did, and it was determined that Obama was NOT constitutionally eligible, they might rule that he never entered the office in the first place - even if he did take the oath. Therefore, no impeachment. Impeachment is reserved for an eligible person inaugurated as POTUS who committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” while in office.
It is akin to annulling a contract when one party is found to have entered into upon the basis of fraud - the contract is automatically null and void.
And yet there are people on FR claiming to be lawyers telling others this is precisely what is going to happen. Oh, and all of us who disagree with this nonsense are going to jail for assisting in the fraud. And people are respecting that as an informed opinion. It's just amazing.
I'd have told the court to piss off. But that's just me.
"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."
The Republicans threw that impeachment.
"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."
The Senate certainly should have removed the rapist, but they had no legal obligation to do so. Impeachment is a political process, and is solely up to their judgement.
The difference here is that people are claiming the court, if it follows the law like it should, has no choice. Even if true, it depends on whether the factual claims are valid. So far the factual claims look pretty damn weak.
As a lawyer with a significant amount of appellate experience, I can state with certainty that there is not a chance in Hell that the SCOTUS is going to grant cert on any case involving Obama's "eligibility."
Obama's eligibility was determined by the voters who voted for him, the electors who cast their electoral votes and the congress that certified the electoral college. He has been given the oath of office and he has assumed the office to which he was duly elected.
If someone were to present irrefutable proof that Obama was born in Indonesia to a Chinese woman and an Egyptian father, it would not matter one whit. The SCOTUS is not even going to look at the evidence. Even if they had the power to remove him (which they don't) they would not touch this issue in a zillion years.
The ONLY way to remove Obama at this point is by impeachment. Anyone with a brain knows that is not going to happen with this congress.
Everyone here is clamoring about the Constitution, yet they all seem willing to bypass the Constitution to remove Obama from office.
He IS the President. Get used to it. He is going to be the President for another 3 years and 363 days. No judge is going to take that away from him, no matter what evidence is brought before him.
LOL!
I know a lot of stupid lawyers. In fact, most of the Lawyers I know voted for Obama.
He has satisfied the officials in charge of the ballots in every jurisdiction, because he appeared on the ballot in every jurisdiction. I don't know exactly what each and every jurisdiction required, but whatever it was, he passed.
No court has intervened, no electoral voter objected, no congressmen objected. No official anywhere in the process in the entire country has raised one doubt, even in the reddest of states. These are people that could have, and if they did he would have responded to.
He has provided an image, and photographs, of a document that is an official Hawaiian birth certificate. Officials from the state have verified that it is a proper Hawaiian birth certificate, and confirmed that they have the original records confirming that document, and that he was born in Hawaii. Had it been a false document they would not have confirmed it. No internet image can be authenticated as genuine, but that doesn't mean it is fake either.
There is a variety of circumstantial evidence supporting the Hawaiian birth. Like the Indonesian school registration when he was a child, which gives his place of birth as Honolulu, in agreement with the birth certificate. This is when he is a small child and nobody could know he would one day be president.
Any reasonable weighing of the evidence must conlude he was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.
Says you.
Clinton took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and was proved to have obstructed justice and perjured himself in an attempt to deny Paula Jones due process. If it had been you whose case had been obstructed by a sitting President, would it be your opinion that the Congress had no legal obligation to remove that President?
-PJ
Here is the best recap of the questions surrounding Obama’s place of birth that I can lay my hands on: Most of our presidential candidates were unquestionably born in America. Barack Obama’s father was never a US citizen. His mother was an atheistic Marxist, who rebeled all her life against traditional American values. One source notes that Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, thought that she would be the wife of big shot Kenyan politician. That would explain why she gave her son a Muslim-African name “Barack Hussein Obama Jr.” Perhaps Obama’s mother also intended for her son to grow up in Africa and to be born in Kenya so that he could follow in his father’s footsteps. There’s was one little problem for Obama’s mother: Her baby’s Daddy was already married to a Kenyan woman. So Ann Dunham ran back from Kenya with her baby and most likely scammed US citizenship for him by claiming he was born at home –outside a hospital. The totally worthless US “justice” system has failed at every step to uphold the Constitution and look into whether or not * Obama was born in Kenya * Obama’s mother may have scammed US citizenship for Barack by bringing him back from Kenya and then claiming he was born at home * Obama became an Indonesian when adopted by his step-father in Indonesia (and Barack never applied for US citizenship when he returned after four years) • Obama renewed his Indonesian passport as an adult in 1981 and traveled to Pakistan and Kenya using that document. MORE QUESTIONS .... 1 - Barack Hussein Obama has not been vetted or certified eligible to the office of president of the United States by any agency tasked to do so or authorized to do so. 2 - Not one American citizen, not one Senator, not one Representative has seen, touched or examined Barack Hussein Obama’s vault copy Hawaii birth certificate. On October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health, Hawaii, issued a press release in which she stated that she had “seen and verified” that a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama did exist; she did not state what was on it nor did she state that it showed that Obama was born in Hawaii. 3 - The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama has been waving about is not a “birth certificate” as he claims, as the mainstream media claims, as FactCheck.org and FighttheSmears.com claims. The COLB is a short form, computer printed document deriving the information printed thereon from a database of information supposedly (See #13 and #14 below) taken from the original long form vault copy Hawaiian birth certificate. 4 - Factcheck.org claims to be a non-partisan organization. Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation on whose board Obama sat. Factcheck.org is about as non-partisan as is Obama. The Annenberg Foundation has never passed up a chance to fund a “progressive” (a.k.a., Marxist) cause. 5 - Hawaii has a law, HRS 338-17.8, which allows for the birth registration of a child born in a foreign country so long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and so long as that parent claimed Hawaii as his or her permanent residence for one year prior to the birth. Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama met both of these requirements. 6 - If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is, at best, a dual citizen. At his birth, his father was a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. Dual citizenship precludes Obama from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Prior cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, involving the determination of “natural born” have used Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” definition which states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Part I, Chapter 19, Section 212). Factcheck.org states that Obama was a dual citizen at birth. 7 - If Obama was born in Kenya, he was, at birth, a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. American law, at that time, required that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama be a minimum of 19 years of age at his birth to confer to him her American citizenship if he was born outside the United States; she was only 18 years old when Obama was born. 8 - Barack Hussein Obama’s paternal step-grandmother has stated before witnesses, said witnesses signing affidavits, that she was witness to the birth of Obama in Kenya. See here, here, and here. 9 - Michelle Obama has stated that Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. 10 - When Barack Hussein Obama was registered at the Fransiskus Assissi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia, his father was listed as Lolo Seotoro; his citizenship as Indonesian; his name as Barry Soetoro. 11 - When Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro divorced Lolo Soetoro in 1980, the divorce papers show they had two children: one minor child (Maya), one over 18 (Barack). 12 - When Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, became an Indonesian citizen, his British citizenship would have been terminated; if he was born in Hawaii, also his American dual citizenship. Indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship. 13 - Returning to the COLB. This document, as waved about by Obama, may be authentic on its face (See #14), but it is not accurate. Were it accurate, it would show Lolo Soetoro as his father; his name as Barry Soetoro. 14 - The COLB Obama waves about lists the race of his biological father as “African.” African is not a race any more than American is. This brings into question the authenticity of the COLB Obama is waving about as his “birth certificate.” 15 - If Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, did become an American citizen, he became a naturalized American citizen which precludes him from eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, United States Constitution. There has been no proof presented that he is even a naturalized American citizen. 16 - Barack Hussein Obama has multiple aliases: Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama, Barack Soetoro, Barack Dunham. When he registered with the American Bar Association, he listed none of these as is required by law. Unless he had his name legally changed to Barack Hussein Obama after his adoption, of which there has been no proof presented, Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barack Hussein Obama is an alias. 17 - All his passport records, education records, medical records, birth records have become “not available” to the public. Those records show where he was born, if he applied for or received aid as a foreign student, the country or countries from which he has received passports. 18 - His selective service registration appears to be fraudulent. If he was a naturalized American citizen when he turned 18, and he failed to register with the selective service, he is barred from holding any position in government, elected or otherwise. 19 - If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is barred from holding any elected office. 20 - If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is an illegal alien.
Courtesy of a fellow FReeper
Thanks for the reply. Personally, as I still have some unanswered questions, I’m not conceding the citizenship issue, but the reality is that Obama is the President and unless something overwhelmingly convincing otherwise is produced that would refute his certified birth records, President he will remain, at least until Nov. 2012.
It's a fact. In an impeachment the Senate is not a court interpreting a law and bound to follow. Impeachment is a political act. The Senate is free to use their judgement. Ultimately, they can refuse to remove a known criminal (which they did), and they can remove a president because they really don't like him.
Paragraphs are your friend.
The constitution does not provide a system for verifying any candidate’s citizenship. I agree with you, though, any hold on Obama really had to take place prior to the electoral college meeting at the very latest.
Preferably, it would have happened by one of his opponents during the primary.
In this case the issue of Obama's citizenship and his eligibility to take the office of President was set before the Jury (in this case the voters) and those voters who voted for him did, by their votes, determine that he was "eligible" to be President.
Juries often get the facts wrong, but regardless, the findings of the jury in regard to the facts is final. In this case the jury has spoken. We will empanel a new Jury on this issue in 4 years and if that jury determines that he is not eligible, then they can vote him out of office.
Right now the only constitutional body that has the authority to overturn the decision of the jury of voters is the Congress. They are free to challenge his eligibility by impeaching him. They won't.
We need to look 4 years ahead and not 3 months behind.
I don't get involved on the basis of what a majority says. Pursuing the truth is it's own goal.
There is another election in 2012 and then there is the historical legacy, which might establish him as a fraud. Either of those goals are worth pursuing.
Your attempt to dissuade people from this issue is suspicious and troubling.
The attempt to explain the truth and counter the mythology is a good thing. Questioning the motives of posters that disagree with you about the facts is suspicious and troubling.
At that point, yes, I question the motives. Sad to see you find my comments about that to be troubling, but that's your problem.
Actually, that sounds exactly like the birthers I deal with. So what does it say about their motives?
I am not attempting to dissuade anyone from pursuing this issue were investigating whether or not Obama is "eligible", however I would dissuade otherwise intelligent people from attempting to undo the results of the election by filing frivolous lawsuits which have absolutely zero chance success.
The tactic of the left has always been to undo results of elections by utilizing an activist judiciary to thwart the will of the people and the decisions of the people into how they wish their country to be governed.
the fact of the matter is that there is not single court in the United States that is going to undo the results of the last presidential election on the slim chance that someone can conclusively prove that Mr. Obama does not meet the necessary eligibility requirements to be the president of the United States.
You may personally be absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Obama does not meet those qualifications. The jury on that issue was the American people, the electoral College, and the Congress, all of whom apparently came to the conclusion that Mr. Obama was "eligible" and he has since been sworn into office.
In this particular case those who are "delusional" are those who are filing these frivolous lawsuits. The constitutional provision to challenge the credentials and eligibility of a sitting president lie in the impeachment process.
Basically what I am attempting to do here is to dissuade otherwise intelligent people from acting like those lunatics who for the last eight years have been attempting to undo the election of George W. Bush on the grounds that he was "selected not elected."
If you wish to gather evidence that Mr. Obama is not eligible to be president, then go ahead and do it. Just do not think that there is a court in the United States that is going to examine that evidence and make any type of ruling and is going to remove Mr. Obama from office. It simply isn't going to happen. If you really think there is, then I'd be more than happy to make a substantial bet with you. Are you willing to put your money where your keyboard is? I've been practicing law for over 20 years and I know that I am holding a Royal Flush in Spades on this issue. Wanna place a bet?
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.