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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
World Net Daily ^ | November 23, 2010 | Brian Fitzpatrick

Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; ussc; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-355 next last
To: ops33
Answer me this.

I certainly feel your children should be eligible to become president since you and your wife are US citizens.

For some reason (perhaps a premonition) the founders put strict requirements based on location of birth. I think it should all be clarified through an Amendment process.

141 posted on 11/24/2010 6:44:22 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Errant; 2ndDivisionVet; freekitty; unkus; LucyT; nutmeg; celtic gal; flat; Candor7; Kaslin

We all know that David Limbaugh did extensive research for his book “Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama.” Rush and David have got to know the truth about whose behind the Fraud and who has been covering it up?

How many politicians and agencies in DC and elsewhere know the truth and have kept it secret and why.


142 posted on 11/24/2010 6:44:36 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Do you remember Justice Thomas’ statement about Obama’s eligibility? He said, “We're evading that”, or words to that effect.

Justice Thomas was “evading” Puerto Rican born Chairman Serrano's presidential eligibility...Obama’s name never came up.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2623753/posts?page=101#101

143 posted on 11/24/2010 6:46:00 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14
Even then, he'd still be Constitutionally qualified.
(Assuming the prostitute was an American Citizen)
144 posted on 11/24/2010 6:46:34 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 673 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Errant
So where is his “Certificate of Loss of Nationality” or even a copy?

Some birther will type it up shortly.

145 posted on 11/24/2010 6:47:11 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

What is David Limbaugh’s FR handle? My guess is “null and void”?


146 posted on 11/24/2010 6:50:04 AM PST by bvw (No TSA goon will touch MY stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I know. Theoretically, the universal injury cases get solved politically, but this thing we’re in is an anomaly, a literal coup pulled off as an inside job, with a potential for unstoppable, rapid damage unlike anything the founders could have foreseen. I consider it a bug in the operating system, and if we survive the system crash (and I think we will), we should definitely look into writing a patch for that bug.


147 posted on 11/24/2010 6:59:28 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ops33

I would say they are. But that is a case which is debatable. Obama’s isn’t. He’s not a natural born citizen no matter where he was born.

I think that in your case, a case on the border line of such law, other factors, besides the US citizenship of both might be weighted. Were you stationed overseas short term or long term? Did your children get raised overseas or in America?

Rather than weight such factors, and introduce founded concerns about judicial bias and possible corruption case by case. many would say that to be natural born means both parents, and born in the boundaries of the established nation. I would assent with that harsher interpretation too, but noting that I believe that cases of children born in territories, embassies, or while on foreign travels of less than two years duration, should also be considered as natural born.


148 posted on 11/24/2010 7:06:06 AM PST by bvw (No TSA goon will touch MY stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: bvw
You flatter me.

I'm *blushing*

149 posted on 11/24/2010 7:14:40 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 673 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; ...
Photobucket
150 posted on 11/24/2010 7:18:08 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 673 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

Yes, a political minded court, rather than a constitutional, rule of law minded court would rather leave the law to a popular vote.


151 posted on 11/24/2010 7:18:56 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: adamjefferson

The Supreme Court has made plenty of decisions in the face of public turmoil and unpopularity in history.

They are either the branch of government that protects the constitution and rule of law in the US or they are another, lessor, rubber stamping branch of government. In that case, we might as well dismiss them and stop the pretend game because we already have the political branch covered.


152 posted on 11/24/2010 7:30:54 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AlexW
I would give a pass on the nuances of the meaning of “natural born”...

Nope. The requirements have been written for over two hundred years. There has been ample time for the Democratic Party, Obama, and all of them to read them, research them, and abide by them. Any failure to do so should, by rights, be taken to task to the fullest extent of the law.

153 posted on 11/24/2010 7:57:39 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"Cert. will be denied without comment.

Unless of course one of the clerks records the murmur of laughter that permeated the building at the time of denial.

It could be the first time in history of the Court where the denial is ended with "LoL.

154 posted on 11/24/2010 8:07:30 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tom h
There are two meaning of the word evade. The second one is only found in older or more complete dictionaries.

It's second meaning is:...to be too difficult, puzzling or baffling for, Example: the flavor evades definition.

Thomas is quite the wordsmith. I suspect he was using the second definition.

155 posted on 11/24/2010 8:23:40 AM PST by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
The Congress has the power to impeach the President.

Disqualification is not Impeachment.

Correct. The Supreme Court could find him unqualified to hold office. But that would be mere non-binding advice to Congress. Certainly, it would be grounds for impeachment. But it doesn't take grounds for impeachment to remove a president. It takes a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate. Congress can ignore grounds, or it can remove with inadequate grounds.

On the other hand, SCOTUS finding him unqualified would probably keep him out of the 2012 election. It would also give a boost to the Hildebeest and possibly to glaziers and carpenters in urban areas.

156 posted on 11/24/2010 8:30:34 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
Remember how the Nixon/Agnew/Ford shuffle played out.

It didn't. Ford was supposed to bow out and let Rockerfeller take over, Betty put the skids to that, and someone blew a gasket...

157 posted on 11/24/2010 8:31:46 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: null and void
The whole country can be a smoking ruin, and still, no one has standing. What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe the suit has to be brought as a class action suit to have standing.

158 posted on 11/24/2010 8:52:11 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
"The Supreme Court could find him unqualified to hold office"

I don't think you have an appreciation for how our federal judiciary works. Except in incredibly rare exceptions (and only as prescribed by the Constitution Art III, Sec. II), the Supreme Court is not a trial Court, it's an appellate court. What does that mean? It means they don't issue findings of fact. They review the application of law that is made by a lower court, to include that court's decision to hear or dismiss cases that come before it.

That is what is at stake now. Will the Court affirm the Circuit court's opinion that the trial court did not err when refusing to hear Appuzzo's case. That's it.

159 posted on 11/24/2010 8:52:11 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Current German law, and the law that existed when my children were born, requires at least one parent to be a German citizen for any children to be eligible for German citizenshp. Not sure what the law would be for children born in the UK, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Italy, etc.

I would not be happy if I found out, that because of my service to my Country, that my children were not considered Natural Born Citizens.


160 posted on 11/24/2010 8:54:36 AM PST by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-355 next last

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.

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