Posted on 01/30/2010 9:02:29 PM PST by Red Steel
Is that for real??? Probably paid for with Stimulus Funds.
I find it unimaginable that some one who went to school with Obama doesn't have a class picture or year book. Good Lord a TV documentary was able to find school pictures of Hitler's distant nephews living in New Jersey under an assumed name. We have pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton looking like hippies. Why nothing for Obama? Obama's past is as sparse as if his family was in a witness protection program.
...and refer to post 26...Zajko's right.
One of the early reporters to work with the Obama campaign campaign to establish the authenticity of the forgery in the eyes of the public was Amy Hollyfield of the St. Petersburg Times.
An inciteful sentence.
The first two in your last line does NOT belong there!!!
Israel Insider was one of the first news agencies to cover the story of the forgery. In an unsigned report dated June 21, 2008, Israel Insider wrote:
In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
Plus the key word......A M E R I C A N.......Citizen???
7. A simple question Dr. Fukino....”was Junior’s father ever an U.S. citizen???
*******
Obama in witness protection program? When we finally see Obama's long form Hawaii birth certificate and see what a phony Obama has been all these years, Obama may have to enter the Witness Protection Program to protect himself and his family from angry American protesters.
Time will tell as to whether Ankeney v Mitch Daniels will be appealed and overturned. State court rulings can set precedents that the federal courts can either follow or ignore. To date the Indiana Court of Appeals’ruling has not been appealed therefore, for now it stands concerning Electors who voted for Obama in Indiana.
The US Supreme Court has had seven different lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility reach them for Justices’ conferences and they have rejected them all without comment. Since it only takes four Supreme Court Justices to agree to hear a case, that means the originalist-strict constructionist-conservative members of the Supreme Court: Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas have not been convinced yet to take on an Obama eligibility case, Vattel or no Vattel.
My guess is that the originalist Justices see nowhere in the Constitution that the Courts have been given the power to remove a sitting president once he is sworn in. Congress alone has that power under Articles of Impeachment by the House and trial and removal by the Senate.
And how would you answer all those questions?
If all it is is her opinion how can you say she's wrong?
Time will tell as to whether Ankeney v Mitch Daniels will be appealed and overturned. State court rulings can set precedents that the federal courts can either follow or ignore. To date the Indiana Court of Appeals’ruling has not been appealed therefore, for now it stands concerning Electors who voted for Obama in Indiana.
The US Supreme Court has had seven different lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility reach them for Justices’ conferences and they have rejected them all without comment. Since it only takes four Supreme Court Justices to agree to hear a case, that means the originalist-strict constructionist-conservative members of the Supreme Court: Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas have not been convinced yet to take on an Obama eligibility case, Vattel or no Vattel.
My guess is that the originalist Justices see nowhere in the Constitution that the Courts have been given the power to remove a sitting president once he is sworn in. Congress alone has that power under Articles of Impeachment by the House and trial and removal by the Senate.
An Indiana Court does not have jurisdiction over either the Constitution or the authority to pass that ruling. It would be overturned on appeal.
Vattel does have relevance here, and only an ignoramus would try to argue otherwise.
>My guess is that the originalist Justices see nowhere in the Constitution that the Courts have been given the power to remove a sitting president once he is sworn in.
That would be the case _IF_ [and only if] the president sworn in WAS constitutionally qualified. As the USSC is supposed to faithfully interpret the law [in regards to constitutionality] they are, most obviously, able to determine if a president is TRULY qualified.
{If you are in the military, and your assignment is the keeping of security, you have EVERY right to question ANY person’s business/authorization who comes into your AO.}
>Congress alone has that power under Articles of Impeachment by the House and trial and removal by the Senate.
But, again, you’re assuming that the Constitution was followed when ‘seating’ the man; it has been noted by the USSC of old that ANY branch of government is capable of raising issues of unconstitutionality... that is that it is the duty of ALL THREE branches to uphold the Constitution.
>My guess is that the originalist Justices see nowhere in the Constitution that the Courts have been given the power to remove a sitting president once he is sworn in.
That would be the case _IF_ [and only if] the president sworn in WAS constitutionally qualified. As the USSC is supposed to faithfully interpret the law [in regards to constitutionality] they are, most obviously, able to determine if a president is TRULY qualified.
{If you are in the military, and your assignment is the keeping of security, you have EVERY right to question ANY person’s business/authorization who comes into your AO.}
>Congress alone has that power under Articles of Impeachment by the House and trial and removal by the Senate.
But, again, you’re assuming that the Constitution was followed when ‘seating’ the man; it has been noted by the USSC of old that ANY branch of government is capable of raising issues of unconstitutionality... that is that it is the duty of ALL THREE branches to uphold the Constitution.
>Show me where in the Constitution it says that the Supreme Court has the authority to remove a person from the presidency.
Can you NOT understand that if someone is, by the Constitution, unqualified then ANY swearing in of that person to be the President is null and void?
If you present fraudulent documents to, say get a driver’s license, and then are found-out should you be allowed to keep that license? If so, why? Likewise, if through malice or incompetence or negligence, Obama was given the ‘presidency’ would that make him eligible; Constitutional requirement for being a Natural Born Citizen notwithstanding?
>The more conservative a Justice is, the less likely they are to read in to the Constitution powers that aren’t expressly stated.
There is nothing that has to be “read in” as you say; if this were programming then we are [illegally] in what Ada calls a ‘guarded statement’ where you put a constraint on some section of code like preventing the denominator from being zero in a division operation. Now here is where my analogy fails, in such programming it is illegitimate/illegal/impossible to be in such a portion of code bypassing the ‘guard’ while in real life all it would take is laziness on the part[s] of whomever was to be validating/verifying the candidates.
IOW, what if it turns out that IN REALITY Obama is PROVABLY _NOT_ eligible to hole the position?
>There have been 7 Obama eligibility lawsuits that have reached the US Supreme Court: Berg v Obama; Craig v US; Donofrio v Wells; Herbert v Obama et al.; Lightfoot v Bowen; Schneller v Cortes; and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. All of them have been summarily dismissed or denied a hearing by the Court without comment.
Which might be exactly what would be done on the legal side if he WAS provably ineligible; this is because such ineligibility would:
1) Reveal that the federal government is NOT interested in upholding the Constitution; and given that the founders have said that the Constitution is supposed to be the chains which bind the government down, this should not surprise anyone.
2) Reveal massive amounts of incompetence; if the government cannot be bothered to verify the eligibility of candidates why should it be bothered to... oh... say keep a good and faithful accounting of social Security funds.
3) Reveal MASSIVE amounts of fraud that the Government SHOULD have picked up on, but rather “swept under the rug.”
4) Be an embarrassment to the USSC because they [or at least one of them] swore the man into office; can you imagine any of those in high-office publicly/nationally saying “I was wrong”?
4a) This would also lead to the question of what else has the USSC been refusing to hear because it might counterdict/embarrass government: the violation of bankruptcy-law in regards to GM bond-holders springs to mind.
5) Reveal that there IS NO COMMANDER IN CHIEF — The Constitution which assigns the President to the role of Commander-in-Chief ALSO requires that the President be 35 years old AND a Natural Born Citizen.
AND
6) Reveal, fully, how little regard the Government, as a whole, has for the Constitution and the People of the United States.
IE - Just because they refuse to hear the case on ‘standing’ means NOTHING; especially as ANY citizen should have Standing in regards to the Constitution. (And because of the Constitutional provision against double-jeopardy all that would be required is the single ‘prove-it’ case regarding eligibility.)
bttt
bumpity-bump
possum in the road
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.