Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg
BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube
There are probably a half dozen scenarios that could all apply to zero as to who he really is. I for one am still researching to find the absolute truth that any of them are true.
I guess one of the ones that sticks out my mind currently is the allegation that zero's grandpa who was a know playboy around the time of his birth in circles with black whore may have been the father.
Is this possible? Who the heck knows.
Absent pictures of his supposed mother, pregnant, it's as good a theory as any.
This issue is so important from my perspective I want absolute proof of who this clown is and for anyone to have certified him without this knowledge is crazy.
Quoting Scalia doesn’t help your faither argument. “I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?” He could easily be talking about Barak Obama Sr.
In my humble opinion the proof is in the pudding: there are five conservative/originalist justices on the high court bench and it only takes four justices to agree to hear an Obama eligibility appeal before the Court and eight appeals have been rejected over a two and a half year period.
I agree with your take on all this. I don’t pretend to have any answers, but it’s obvious there are many questions that are hanging out there unanswered. This is perhaps the most important question that can be asked regarding our government? Is the head of state legitimately seated?
Man, if that isn’t important what is?
We are a tin pot nation until this stuff is put to rest. We are a world-class joke right now.
I personally don’t find it funny at all.
Apparently, I’m stupid...and yet, I’m right about what happens when things get to court.
When your model doesn’t match the real world, is it the model or the world that is wrong?
To get back to the original subject, wasn’t Clinton “embarrassed” by Monicagate? Wasn’t Nixon “embarrassed” by Watergate? So why can’t Obama be “embarrassed” by Larkin’s kangaroo court? The American people deserve to know the truth, just as in the two cases cited.
You're not paying attention. Scalia's comment is acknowledging that the natural born requirement was intended to exclude jus soli births to foreign national parents.
Your first three words are accurate. The rest ... not so much. You haven’t been right about what happens when things get to court as you keep misrepresenting what has actually happened. No court has found Obama to be a natural born citizen. No court has declared Obama’s jpg to be a legal birth record. No court has declared that Obama was officially born in Hawaii. What the hell do you think you’re right about??
To get back to the original subject, wasn’t Clinton “embarrassed” by Monicagate? Wasn’t Nixon “embarrassed” by Watergate? So why can’t Obama be “embarrassed” by Larkin’s kangaroo court? The American people deserve to know the truth, just as in the two cases cited.
For example: “When such questions arise in the course of litigation the courts will refuse to take jurisdiction of the action if it necessarily involves such a determination or if the question has been settled by the action of the political departments of the government the judiciary will accept and follow their conclusions without question. There are two reasons for this rule. In the first place courts ought not to usurp the functions of the political branches of the government nor intrude upon their jurisdiction And second in public affairs of the state or nation such as may be made the basis of executive or legislative action the judicial tribunals must not hamper or EMBARRASS the other departments by prejudging the questions which they will have to decide or attempting to review their decisions already made.”
Source: Handbook of American Constitutional Law, Henry Campbell Black
You’re not paying attention. Scalia’s comment is acknowledging that the natural born requirement was intended to exclude jus soli births to foreign national parents.
So if Scalia is firmly in the birther camp, who do you think is the strict constructionist Justice who is refusing to be the 4th vote under “The Rule of Four” to grant a hearing to an Obama eligibility appeal?
Perhaps its Clarence Thomas not wanting to undo the presidency of the first (half) African-American president?
Such amazing intrigue.
There’s no ‘birther camp.’ Making up nonsensical entities for your own delusional amusement doesn’t advance whatever argument you imagine yourself to be making. You posted Scalia’s words and I pointed out the error in your assumption. None of this is specifically indicative of the Supreme Court’s rationale for not accepting appeals that have challenged Obama’s eligibility. So far, the SCOTUS seems only to be supporting the doctrine of standing which has been the procedural obstacle keeping these cases out of courts.
“What the hell do you think you’re right about??”
That the courts agree that anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen, and that no one has any evidence Obama was born outside the USA, and that he is thus sitting as the legitimate President even tho I despise him.
That Vattel doesn’t count for squat, and that you don’t get standing by whining, and that no birther can convince anyone with standing of their case.
That Lakin never stood a chance, since Obama’s birth records are immaterial to the matter of the trial, and that birthers want the military to go to prison while they sit on the side lines egging them on, and that birthers who obey laws passed since 20 Jan 2009 and signed by Obama are cowardly hypocrites.
There’s no ‘birther camp.’ Making up nonsensical entities for your own delusional amusement doesn’t advance whatever argument you imagine yourself to be making. You posted Scalia’s words and I pointed out the error in your assumption. None of this is specifically indicative of the Supreme Court’s rationale for not accepting appeals that have challenged Obama’s eligibility. So far, the SCOTUS seems only to be supporting the doctrine of standing which has been the procedural obstacle keeping these cases out of courts.
You have absolutely no idea why the Supreme Court has rejected all Obama eligibility challenges and neither do I because the Supreme Court has not chosen to spell out the reasons for their denials of Writs of Certiorari.
The assumption that those rejections are for standing issues is just that, a guess on your part.
By the way, “standing” is not a “procedural hurdle,” its a legal doctrine based in settled law stemming from Article 3 of the US Constitution, hence the term “Article 3 standing.”
STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
At the Supreme Court of the United States, the high court can accept any appeal that they think raises important constitutional issues. The Supreme Court can and does grant standing based on the issues raised in the appeal.
“The issue of standing is more than a technical aspect of the judicial process. A grant or denial of standing determines who may challenge government policies and what types of policies may be challenged. Those who believe that the federal courts should not increase their power generally believe standing should be used to limit access to the courts by persons or groups seeking to change public policy. They believe the legislative branch should deal with these types of issues. Opponents of a strict standing test complain that plaintiffs never get a chance to prove their case in court. They believe that justice should not be denied by the application of judicially created doctrines such as standing.”—West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008
Are we not entitled to honest elections? Are not the constitutional requirements for the office of president to be followed? If our right to an honest election is violated or there are allegations to that effect, do we as voters not have standing to bring a case. The lack of standing argument is just a ruse to protect the suspect and to prevent the system from being “disrupted.”
Are we not entitled to honest elections? Are not the constitutional requirements for the office of president to be followed? If our right to an honest election is violated or there are allegations to that effect, do we as voters not have standing to bring a case. The lack of standing argument is just a ruse to protect the suspect and to prevent the system from being “disrupted.”
“If Tea Party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, ‘birthers’ who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.”
Karl Rove, February 17, 2010, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
No, ‘standing’ is to prevent a million frivolous lawsuits. Any state government via its legislature or DA or Secretary of State could issue a ruling requiring two citizen parents to be placed on the Presidential ballot, and the state would force a court case - but not even Utah believes the birther arguments.
It would only have required one Congressman and one Senator to have objected to Obama’s election to force Congress to deal with the issue - but there wasn’t a single member of Congress who believed the birther arguments.
One state was willing to accept a case (Indiana), and it ruled against the birthers. The problem isn’t standing, but that no one with standing believes the birthers have a case.
One court has come up with a flawed statement that they found phantom guidance to believe that being born in the U.S. regardless of the status of the parents is enough to make someone a natural born citizen, but they carefully and purposely avoided calling Obama a natural born citizen or a legitimate president, so you’re still batting 0-fer.
And once again you stab your own argument in the foot and prove mine for me. Thank you.
Fine. Live in your fantasy world. For any others reading, here is what the Indiana Court wrote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
In this case, they did not discuss where Obama was born because:
“With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Are you doing like James now and making my argument for me?? Your quote from Ankeny shows how they avoided declaring Obama to be a natural born citizen despite having a perfect opening. The problem was that they couldn’t, because they can’t say with any certainty that Obama was born in the United States. At best, they’re claiming Barak Sr’s citizenship doesn’t matter, but as you and I know both know, this absolutely false, since WKA specifically used the same definition of natural born citizen as the Minor decision.
The plaintiffs never alleged that Obama was born anywhere but the US, so the Indiana court heard no evidence to that effect and made no ruling on it.
Since they assumed he WAS born in the US, and the plaintiffs didn’t challenge the idea, they only needed to rule as they did - that ANY ONE born in the US is a natural born citizen.
Based on the matters pertaining to the plaintiffs complaint, they ruled Obama eligible. Deal with it.
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.