Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judge's October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a "frivolous" litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Taitz sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz's second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It even had a line in it that showed our leader had been born in Hawaii! Camera did a real clear close up.
I am 100% convinced that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Hawaii and not only that, all of you 'Doubting Thomases" out there, he is the
Bwahahahahahahaha ... will there be bonfires, with Republican babes being burned, to celebrate?
This administration has gone to great lengths to support a myth using brand new documentation of questinable origins. As far as original, 1961, doctor-signed documentation ... even harder to find than a Sasquatch corpse.
This is the country in which a light-in-the-loafers commie kid from Kenya should be able to follow his dream and take the top job in the land. Never forget, edge, that Muslims and Marxists are just people, and if you talk openly and honestly with them, that dialogue between friends will win us a lot more than your harsh attitude.
Try it. They will let you live at least long enough to tell them where you hid the stuff that they want. And I really do not appreciate your comparison of Michelle, Ma Belle, the First Lady of this Great Land of Ours, to a Sasquatch.
I don’t think there are any Sasquatches as big as Michelle. She’s a big dude.
Enjoy your baking cats, but remember - you didn’t write the Constitution. Those who did were quite familiar with the term ‘natural born subject’ - which allowed someone born of TWO alien parents to still be a natural born subject.
That is why the Supreme Court argued in 1898 that since NBC & NBS are “precisely analogous”, and only differ in the type of government they fall under, a natural born citizen CAN have two alien parents. And since WKA met the Constitutional demands for a NBC, he was thus a citizen per the Constitution and no treaty could override it.
You can argue oven cats as much as you want, but if you ever get to court (unlikely), you will be expected to show the original intent of the Founders as determined by the US Supreme Court is on your side. And it isn’t.
I should not like to appeal anything to the SCOTUS over the next year or so, because I am sure that the brigade of marxist lesbians is about to be joined by either Raoul Castro, or Evo Morales. In the meantime, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are all too apt to have some trouble landing at a Russian Airport.
[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm
Setting aside the rank paranoia of that, people with the cumulative legal experience of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would need all of a thirty-second scan to recognize that Taitz is unhinged on this issue, doesn't have the slightest idea what she's doing, and hasn't filed a brief any court would take seriously. So why should they bother to read the whole thing? Courts get deranged ravings from incompetents on a semi-regular basis and summarily dismiss them.
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.