Posted on 06/29/2010 7:06:51 PM PDT by Man50D
Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president – in fact, he may not even be American.
Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a court order recently cancelled the hearing and instead announced the case would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by attorneys.
A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne Trump Barry, who was appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman, who was appointed by George W. Bush.
The filings were due on the day the hearing would have been held, but there's no published timetable for a decision to be released.
The case argues Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer,
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
with the recent problems between Obama and the Clintons,the fix might not be a done deal
Hello clown. As you said, “There will be no congressional investigation after the November election. No Republican member of Congress has even called for an investigation.”
None?? A pretty flimsy statement to make when the Rats have about slim and none of holding Congress this November, and it is a lot closer to ‘none’. I’m sure Issa is dead serious about subpoena-ing the crap out of Obama. You keep that delusional thought of yours though that there will be no Republican investigations of Obama after the elections. Haha...
I have moved you off your original point that no Repub is going to investigate Obama to saying Congressman Darrel Issa is going to go after Obama after November. See, you can be house trained...with persistence.
Yes, you are quite a rhetorical legend in your own mind!
I’m moving on now to more intelligent discussions.
No one likes their posts taken apart but yours are silly.
I’m moving on now to more intelligent discussions.
That's impossible for you clown.
No, it was 3-0 to find that the case was frivolous.
For the record, the US Court of Appeals for the Third District DID uphold the ruling of the US District Court in Kerchner v Obama and the issue under consideration WAS standing to sue not whether “Obama is even an American”.
The Court of Appeals called this appeal “frivolous” and the Court is considering issuing sanctions against “Birther” attorney Mario Apuzzo and the court is asking Apuzzo to show cause why he should not have to pay all of the court costs for wasting the Court’s time.
I won’t say “I told you so.”
Well I told you that the courts and so has Justice Thomas said they are evading the issue. The know the answer that Obama is not a natural born citizen. The courts are playing politics or to the point realpolitik, and they are not upholding the law.
Well I told you that the courts and so has Justice Thomas said they are evading the issue. The know the answer that Obama is not a natural born citizen. The courts are playing politics or to the point realpolitik, and they are not upholding the law.
If a plaintiff with standing to sue can’t be found to take the lead in presenting an issue to the courts, plaintiffs’ attorneys deserves to lose, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...
- - -
This is evading. Seizethecarp the has summed it up appropriately:
- - - - - - -
"“Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
Id. at 483 n.5. We agree.”
WOW!
I read this to mean:
The Court (the District Court) acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area (clarifying Obama’s constitutional NBC status). We (3rd Circuit Appeals court) agree.
In other words, the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court agrees with the District Court's frustration with Congress’ inaction in failing to clarify Obama’s constitutional NBC status.
- - - - - - -
The court refuse to take up the case because Congress failed in their responsibility by not vetting Obama properly as a natural born citizen, therefore, why should "We" in the judiciary have to do it? Clearly they are evading the issue just as Justice Clarence Thomas has said.
About the sanctions, the little pansies on the 3rd are miffed because Appuzo failed to cite their Berg case.
This is evading. Seizethecarp the has summed it up appropriately:
- - - - - - -
““Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
Id. at 483 n.5. We agree.”
WOW!
I read this to mean:
The Court (the District Court) acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area (clarifying Obama’s constitutional NBC status). We (3rd Circuit Appeals court) agree.
In other words, the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court agrees with the District Court’s frustration with Congress’ inaction in failing to clarify Obama’s constitutional NBC status.
45 posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 5:12:30 PM by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report
- - - - - - -
The court refuse to take up the case because Congress failed in their responsibility by not vetting Obama properly as a natural born citizen, therefore, why should “We” in the judiciary have to do it? Clearly they are evading the issue just as Justice Clarence Thomas has said.
About the sanctions, the little pansies on the 3rd are miffed because Appuzo failed to cite their Berg case.
It’s not the responsibility of Congress to vet candidates. That is the duty of the chief election official, usually an elected Secretary of State in each of the fifty states. The Chief Election official enforces the election laws and the ballot requirements of that state.
For example, to get on the ballot for the Democratic Primary in the state of Arizona in 2008, a candidate had to sign a statement that he or she was a natural born citizen. Barack Obama signed that statement. If he is not a natural born citizen or if there was a legitimate question about that issue, the state of Arizona could and should have done the vetting BEFORE the STATE RUN primary election.
Obama announced his candidacy on February 10. 2007. There was a year and a half to vet him.
Here’s a copy of the “Arizona Candidate Nomination Paper” for Barack Obama. Note that it is signed and notarized.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
Now if there was anything at all to this silly birther mythology, any prosecuting attorney in a conservative state like Arizona could have convened a grand jury investigation into whether Obama committed fraud when he signed a notarized statement that he is a natural born citizen and therefore was eligible to be on the Democratic Primary ballot in Arizona. HE SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT!!! There were other states that required similiar notarized statements and signatures.
Yeah, Apuzzo might get his ignorant butt sanctioned. Judges don’t take too kindly to advocates who are too stupid to perform the due diligence that you learn in any halfway decent law school.
Lawyers tend to lose lawsuits and get sanctioned when the judges feel that the attorney is trying to pull an unethical fast one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2543518/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2543518/posts
Some idiots are on that thread.
Pathetic?
The 3rd Appeals Court:
"The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's frustration with what they perceive as Congress's inaction in this area.
We agree."
The court here is NOT agreeing that they agree Kerchner and Apuzzo are frustrated as that would be silly. Of course the Plaintiff and his counselor are frustrated. What the court is saying is that they are too nonplussed, frustrated, and feel that the ball has been unfairly put in in their court. It is a moment of the court being candid.
If you don’t want a person with a father born in Kenya to be president, vote for Representatives and Senators who will change or further define the law and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment.
Now this is a completely ignorant statement by you.
Obama's father being born in Kenya is not the issue or has it ever been the issue. What is at issue is that Barack Sr. was a foreign national who passed on his foreign citizenship to his son Obama. A birthright citizenship.
You further show your complete ignorance by stating that Congress can define or change the natural born citizenship clause. The Constitutional NBC clause cannot be changed as it still has the same meaning and intent as at the time of adoption of the US Constitution in 1787. Moreover, the 14th Amendment never changed or was it intended to change the meaning of the NBC clause. If you want the NBC clause changed to whatever...you clown Jameseee, you have to amend the US Constitution with an Amendment that would follow the 27th Amendment.
Yes, they are feeling their oats today.
I look forward to the day the hide in shame and in fear of retribution.
Each that that passes, brings that day one day closer.
Pathetic?
The 3rd Appeals Court:
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s frustration with what they perceive as Congress’s inaction in this area.
We agree.”
The court here is NOT agreeing that they agree Kerchner and Apuzzo are frustrated as that would be silly. Of course the Plaintiff and his counselor are frustrated. What the court is saying is that they are too nonplussed, frustrated, and feel that the ball has been unfairly put in in their court. It is a moment of the court being candid.
You further show your complete ignorance by stating that Congress can define or change the natural born citizenship clause. The Constitutional NBC clause cannot be changed as it still has the same meaning and intent as at the time of adoption of the US Constitution in 1787. Moreover, the 14th Amendment never changed or was it intended to change the meaning of the NBC clause. If you want the NBC clause changed to whatever...you clown Jameseee, you have to amend the US Constitution with an Amendment that would follow the 27th Amendment.
A person born in Kenya IS a foreign national if they don’t become a naturalized US citizen as far as US law is concerned.
Every ratified amendment to the US Constititution thus far has been proposed by a two-thirds vote of the members of both Houses of Congress. In Article One, Section Two, the Twelfth Amendment has altered the text of the original Constitution.
The US Court of Appeals’ judges have expressed the exact same judicial point of view as US District Court Judge David O. Carter expressed in his decision in dismissing “Taitz v Obama:”
Judge Carter wrote:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009
"The "Birther" versus Obama lawsuit scorecard is now Obama 71-Birthers 0.
Yes and somewhere an El Presidente of say Parador has had a democratic vote, a referendum no less on his retaining power. Results.
El Presidente, 99.9 in Favor.
spoiled ballots .1
others 0.
Yes and somewhere an El Presidente of say Parador has had a democratic vote, a referendum no less on his retaining power. Results.
El Presidente, 99.9 in Favor.
spoiled ballots .1
others 0.
Frivolous is convenient excuse to give. Evading Obama's lack of NBC status is the easier path for them to take. None of these federal court opinions has proclaimed Obama a natural born citizen as to the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. This one didn't either. It is just as easily for them to claim a case "frivolous" as easily to say Obama is a natural born citizen and is qualified to hold presidential office... if that was true. Gee Obot clown why is that not happened? Why has none of these federal judges claimed Obama an NBC?
However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s
Does this pResident look like he has taken his oath to the US Constitution seriously to you? Does he care about checks and balances of this government or does he hold them in contempt? Obama shows his contempt everyday and is in your face that he flaunts the laws of this country and certainly when it has to do with citizenship. As Obama has just proclaimed - "Obama: Being An American Not A Matter Of "Blood Or Birth"
One day Obot, you'll get the zot here and I'll be there to wish you bon voyage.
Pleased to have your reposte. Just trying to infuse my lame sense of humour into what has been very educational here. At times very well fought between well matched adversaries, apart from other aspects.(sigh)
I plead that I am not confused. Just a little attempt to compare things here. The absolutely incredible power of someone or something, has absolutely and completely shut down the "Birthers", so far. When yer batting a 1000 every time in the courts and so many different jurisdictions!
Someone wields enormous power to stop the case at once. All the President's men?
"Democratic votes" go in column A and "court decisions " go in Column B."
Pleased to have your reposte. Just trying to infuse my lame sense of humour into what has been very educational here. At times very well fought between well matched adversaries, apart from other aspects.(sigh)
I plead that I am not confused. Just a little attempt to compare things here. The absolutely incredible power of someone or something, has absolutely and completely shut down the “Birthers”, so far. When yer batting a 1000 every time in the courts and so many different jurisdictions!
Someone wields enormous power to stop the case at once. All the President’s men?
What it is that has shut down the “birthers” thus far is very simple. Its called “legal standing to sue.” There is only one person who would have legal standing to sue Obama on eligibility grounds. That person is Senator John McCain, the only other person to have won Electoral College votes and therefore the only person to meet the legal definition of having “standing” to sue. McCain’s “injury” is specific and particularized which is required under the rules of standing. No one else has “injury in fact.” If Obama is ineligibile, McCain was directly injured by Obama becoming president.
However Senator McCain has chosen not to sue because he is not a “birther.” Neither McCain nor Sarah Palin nor the Republican National Committee nor any elected Republican member of Congress has chosen to join any of the birther lawsuits or even file an “amicus” brief (friend of the court brief) in support of any of the more than seventy lawsuits that have been filed.
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.