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 ...
You dont suppose she has a flat head do you?;)
Where are all the naysayers? I havent seen them in sometime.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."
Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.
"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."
I understand. Kinda funny though, that even then he would have been qualified, even though it was one of those duck walk questions that is obvious to a third grader that since the country didn’t exist...
I was screwing around with it a little. But just a little.
That's the definition the usurper himself agreed upon when he signed Senate Resolution 511.
Cert. will be denied without comment.
As Thomas said, they are “evading” the issue. This will never be heard. The US Constistution and We the People will be ignored again.
We've just got to make sure it never happens again.
Van Buren was born before the constitution was ratified, but I think he would still be the first.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
“Son, do your parents know that you’re on the internet this late at night? [rolls eyes.”
I suspect Mr. Noob gets his news only from a neatly folded copy of the New York Slimes or WAPO that is proudly displayed on his coffee table.
I agree with you ... that if the matter isn't crystal clear the SCOTUS will leave well enough alone, meaning they would defer to the results of the 2008 election and turn down the challenge to BO's eligibility. It would not be the first time that the SCOTUS has acted in this fashion.
But, lest we forget, the SCOTUS is VERY VERY aware of the eligibility issue. Justice Roberts had a private discussion with Obama during the weeks before his inauguration; it has been presumed that questions were asked because the meeting was very much out of precedent.
And, let's not forget Justice Thomas' comments during a Congressional hearing earlier this year. A Puerto Rican congressman joked about his own eligibility to be President, and Justice Thomas smiled back and said, "well, the Supreme Court is certainly evading the question of eligibility."
But there is no doubt that if the SCOTUS ruled that Obama was illegitimate, the nation would have a constitutional crisis like it never had. Forget Nixon's obstruction of justice or Clinton's perjury. For Obama to have run for the office, knowing full well he was ineligible, this is a crime far beyond that of Nixon's or Clinton's. And we could expect riots in the inner cities that would put Watts or the Rodney King riots to shame.
Can't wait.
There really should be a pool to see what the distraction will be. Could be another missile launch off the coast, another aide thrown under the bus, another corporate takeover, martial law, or another vacation? Naw, strike the vacation, btdt.
They won't touch it because the Constitution explicitly leaves that prerogative to Congress.
No cigar! We won the House, but didn't even get a majority of the Senate, much less the required two thirds.
I would give a pass on the nuances of the meaning of “natural born”, if, and only if, Obammie would produce damn birth certificate that says he was born at whatever hospital in Hawaii.
I do not think he can do it.
If the USSC rules the case has merit, we'll be at war with somebody.
That would more likely be his parent's coffee table, but yes, that appears to be where he gets his news.
Check out this doozy of a post:
If JimRob is going to attack every thread for the next two years with his Romney vitriol, I fear that he’s going to over-expose his hatred, and everyone will be completely numb and brain-dead!
363 posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 11:34:50 PM by Noob1999
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.