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.
It used to be.
Now, the SCOTUS is the legislature express.
I don't know the guy and he's been here awhile, so I don't know that he's a sinister person.
I can't understand why people don't want to pursue truth, especially with the possibility that we are experiencing a fraud on the grandest scale. I start with that.
I have no trouble with fighting on multiple fronts and doing whatever we can do. In some cases, a shotgun is more effective than a scalpel.
I don't ask myself if everything I'm doing is being done by the left. I decide on what I think needs to be done. If it's not unethical or illegal, then it's available for consideration. If you start eliminating every tactic and strategy used by your opponent you would soon have no options and Patten would have been defeated by Rommel.
Those who filed the lawsuits are patriots. They made an attempt to get the courts top take responsibility when the secretaries of state and media would not. I supported one of the lawsuits with evidence about our secretary of state. If I had money, I would have filed my own suit. Either you believe in it or you don't.
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.”
***
Yeah - but at least Bush v. Gore was reviewed by the Court.
And, here is what the Court has said about the right to vote ...
” ... The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1 ... When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter ... The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another ...”
If the Court really belives that, then they should grant standing to any voter who challenges an election ...
BTW - 5 of the Justices who concurred with this text are still on the Court.
If Gore had already taken the oath of office, they would not have touched it under any circumstances. The Supreme Court took it because the issue had not been rendered moot by the swearing in of either candidate.
If the Court really belives that, then they should grant standing to any voter who challenges an election ...
LOL! If that were the case, then obviously the court would not really believe that.
The election is over. Obama won. He has taken the oath of office, The only way to remove him is by impeachment. He will not be impeached.
Get over it.
You said — “I am dubious of the claim that it was Obama’s doing.”
You may be dubious for rational reasons..., but a lot here are (obviously) not dubious.
You asked — “Is this still Silly Season? Because, this is silly.”
It’s been silly season for quite a while, now... :-)
You said — “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.”
I’ve been *assured* by some educated FReepers here (educated by Constitutional lawyers, no less...) that all that is required is for some Marshal with court orders to go to the White House and escort Obama off the premises, for not ever being legally qualified to hold office. It’s as simple as that, I’m told — by these educated Freepers — even when I’ve pointed out what the Constitution says.
I guess we’ll see what happens when a Marshal goes walking into the White House... :-)
First of all it is Patton not Patten and secondly, Rommel and Patton never faced off in any battle.
If I had money, I would have filed my own suit. Either you believe in it or you don't.
What kind of evidence would you accept to prove that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen? Would you be satisfied if he presented an official certified birth certificate from the State of Hawaii? How about eyewitness testimony? How about a birth announcement in the newspaper in Hawaii within a week of the birth? How about hospital records?
What would it take to prove to you that Obama is "eligible" to serve in the office he now holds?
You said — “How can he do that? I thought SCOTUS was part of a check and balance system. I am going to have to stop coming to FreeRepublic...my blood pressure is going through the roof with what is being uncovered already about this administration.”
Especially if you *believe* what is being posted... :-)
I think the problem would be solved (about your blood pressure) if you simply went on the basis of what you know to be rationally true...
You said — “Philippians 4:6
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God;...”
Very true. God has put Obama in office, by what His Word says, in regards to all things being under His control. Even though we cast votes (as a nation) God still controls the results... That’s exactly what the Bible says.
That doesn’t mean that one goes along with someone or something that is wrong, but when evil is allowed to gain the upper hand, even in spite of your actions to prevent it — you can be assured that God did not let that “slip through His hands” but was active in letting it happen directly that way...
You said — “Have you seen Obamah’s certified birth certificate? Do you think that thing we’ve seen is actually a birth certificate?”
Did you see Obama take office? How about seeing how those cases are going, thus far, with the Supreme Court. Is there any evidence out there that has been accepted by the Supreme Court or the lower courts in order to invalidate Obama’s qualifications as President?
I think I see why we are talking past each other so consistently.
Here's the impeachment clause from the Constitution:" The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
From a practical standpoint, you are correct; the Congress can wield impeachment for political reasons. Then they are answerable only to the voters.
But the Constitution does not give Congress the power to do so, any more than the Constitution gives Congress the power to pass unConstitutional laws. It would clearly be an ABUSE of power to do so.
Similarly, the Constitution limits the Presidency to those who meet the elegibility criteria. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to ignore these requirements. Congress does so as an abuse of power. Similarly, the Supreme Court will be abusing its power to enforce laws if it enforces laws signed by a person not eligible to be President.
The "shall" is operative upon conviction. It's not requiring conviction.
"...shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of..."
If the Senate doesn't convict then the "shall be removed" has no effect.
The Senate's discretion to convict or not is complete.
You said — “Evidence? ..maybe it’s in some of Obamah records he refuses to release, including his REAL birth certificate.”
Could be, but so far no one knows and they are simply going on the basis of deductions, reasonings, speculations and “connections” that make them think that. The courts are not going to act on those kinds of things, but only the direct and legal evidence that someone can produce for the court. It has not been forthcoming so far, and now he is the President, so any removal from office is in the hands of the House of Representatives and also in the hands of the Senate. They will have to be the ones who act on anything.
"Backers of the idea that Mr. Obama isn't a natural-born citizen say Mr. Obama's certification of live birth doesn't quell the issue. They say a certification can be obtained after birth.""But the Hawaii State Department of Health said Monday that there is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID, said Alvin Onaka, a research and statistics officer at the Department of Health."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Thursday, August 28, 2008
Of all the newspapers in all the world, you choose to quote one most radically liberal newspapers that has ever existed. The Washington Times makes the NYT look like a John Birch newsletter. /sarcasm
No it is not.
The clause very clearly mandates conviction for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I don't believe the Founders used that language to include conviction for political disagreement.
The potential for abuse of power does not indicate that the Constitution grants such power.
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.