Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
I would be thrilled to have a Supreme Court hearing. Whatever the verdict I would fully accept it.

It is outrageous though that common citizens are told that they have “no standing” and are frustrated by all three branches of our government from having Obama’s eligibility fully examined and resolved.

This fundamental flaw in our legislative and legal process needs to be fixed. It isn't just the natural born status of this particular president, surely other constitutional questions will arise in the future and a rational system for prompt and thorough resolution needs to be provided.

4 posted on 04/24/2010 9:28:02 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: wintertime
"I would be thrilled to have a Supreme Court hearing. Whatever the verdict I would fully accept it."

Except in cases where original jurisdiction applies, the Supreme Court doesn't hold hearings, nor does it issue "verdicts", this is the role of the trial court, known usually as the District Court in the federal system. Primarily, SCOTUS is the final appellate court in the country and it reviews the decisions of lower courts. The Court never finds anyone guilty or innocent (as it is NEVER the court of original jurisdiction in a criminal matters), but it will vacate those findings of a lower court, if the Court finds some Constitutional or other legal infirmity in the lower court's application of US law.

As for you excepting "whatever verdict", I'm dubious as the Supreme Court has already issued several (your word) "verdicts" when they have refused plaintiff's petition for certiorari.

Denial of cert shouldn't necessarily be taken as an endorsement of the lower court's decision. But, I would point out that while the Court has denied cert in every "birther" case that it's come across, it did grant cert for Anna Nicole Smith and her contested inheritance case of her late husband. That should be enlightening.

26 posted on 04/24/2010 10:12:47 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: wintertime

The Supreme court will probley never review this case as they would have to uphold the original intent of the founding fathers CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN, and of course previously decisions by the Supreme court CHILDREN WHOS PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS ARE NATURAL BORN. Botton line ,BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of a child’s birth to be considered Natural Born. By law this issue is supposed to be settled by Congress, when a politican is found to be ineligible to hold a office under District of columbia code 3501 that persons election is required to be voided. All votes for the person would be void and the “runner up” would be given the office. Of course congress knew in advance that obama was not elgible but ignored the Constitution and installed him as “president” A little question of Treason!


155 posted on 04/24/2010 9:08:24 PM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: wintertime

It is also the fact that Kenya claims he was born there in that country. Also, the Constitution says that they must be born in the United States to two US citizen parents (obviously paraphrased). In any event, if Obamaggedon didn’t have so much to hide he would have taken care of this long ago. Even before the election which he of course won by Acorn fraud. The man seems to thrive on fraud doesn’t he? CO


354 posted on 04/28/2010 10:17:58 AM PDT by Canadian Outrage (Conservatism is to a country what medicine is to a wound - HEALING!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson