Posted on 11/30/2010 2:24:09 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
The Supreme Court has again cast aside an appeal that raised doubts about President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a grass-roots legal issue that has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.
The justices without comment Monday rejected a challenge from Charles Kerchner Jr., a Pennsylvania man who sought a trial in federal court forcing the president to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.
Kerchner's attorney, Mario Apuzzo, had argued in a petition with the Supreme Court that Obama did not fit the definition of a "natural-born citizen" required for the nation's highest office, as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Actually, when a judge doesn’t even hold a trial in case after case it usually means the subject is frivolous.
We need a definition of Natural Born. I believe it should be two citizens as parents of the prospective President, but who knows if courts will even rule on it?
I am too. Obama is as fake as a three dollar bill.
If Obababa was a conservative Republican, his birth credentials would be front and center and anally investigated.
That he is an extreme leftist Dem means the law does not apply to him.
Our country is just a big, corrupt banana republic.
And will stay so, until Liberals of all Parties are out of the political system.
BO’s fraud in getting nominated and elected is the issue.
The BO crisis will not be resolved until BO and his co-conspirators are indicted. Once BO’s crimes are exposed then SCOTUS will have to order him legally removed.
http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320
The next President, if someone Conservative with balls, could investigate and find Obababa to be illegally President and declare all laws/regs made under his authority to be null and void.
Which would be a quick Obababa Cr*pCare fix.
Among many other travesties.
The Supreme Court is about as helpful as the DreddScott decision.
Your statement shows what the problem is. You seem to think that the issue is the birth certificate. A CERTIFIED CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH is required to prove that obama is NOT a Natural Born citizen. If obama’s opponents can not get a copy of obama’s birth records, they have no proof that he was born with a foreign father. Which would make him ineligible to be the President. It does not matter if everyone knows that his father was a foreign national, it has to be proven in court.
The Supreme Court rejected the case they did not want to remove obama from office.
CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN
obama IS NOT OR NEVER CAN BE the President of the United States as he is in violation of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. A bad decision by the Supreme Court does not change the facts.
What is your evidence that Obama loves this?
While you are well known here as an Obot jamese777, you are correct. That is why the Kerchner complaint charged Cheney, Pelosi, and Congress with denying equal protection under the law. Cmdr. Kerchner sent registered letters asking that Obama be vetted as McCain was. The reason that Obama wasn’t vetted was that every Senator knew he was ineligible. But they also knew McCain was almost certainly ineligible too. Every Senator signed Senate Res 511 in hearings for which in the Senate Judiciary Committee the requirement for two citizen parents was repeated by Michael Chertoff and Patrick Leahy.
Nothing important is being hidden. Obama is ineligible because of our common law, repeated in a dozen cases though not essential to a decision. The Congressional Research Service published an internal memo in April 2009, sending it to all in Congress, telling Congress how to respond, how to evade answering the question of Obama’s eligibility. And all of Congress concealed the fact of the fourteen page memo, by request, and because it would reveal that they all knew there was a problem with Obama’s eligibility.
What we see here is the corruption of the Supreme Court. The two Obama appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, whose appointments would have been nullified if the the court confirmed John Marshall, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, John Bingham, Joseph Story, James Wilson, etc. etc., refused to recuse themselves. That is a clear conflict of interest. It doesn’t require an article or amendment to understand that having a judge decide whether her or she is to lose his job is unethical. We do not have an ethical court. They now perform ceremonial functions while it still serves the purpose of the executive to bless their edicts with the adjective “Supreme.”
Commander Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo have exposed the coupling of our executive, legislative, and judicial branches. They have exposed the value of having dupes appointed justices of the court. Republicans too have been exposed as complicit. For most the duplicity is personal. Its about money. It is unlikely that Lisa Murkowski ever held a principle that couldn’t be bought. Democrats control electoral processes in Alaska and showed that they can put anyone the chose into office. The guarantees in the Declaration and the Constitution are now impressive sounding slogans with no recourse of an honorable court to resolve departures from our core of law.
The only path now is to assert the power of people, and that must start with undoing what George Soros and others undertook before we understood the consequences of not having verifiable elections. We have no way of knowing how people vote, and both parties have failed to insist. Soros funded Acorn years ago, and the Secretary of State Project to help take away representation of and by the people. We haven’t a clue how people really vote. While there may still be a few local precincts with party oversight, paper ballots, and hand counts, they are a small minority. No other mechanism today would satisfy a court’s chain of evidence requirement, or our FDA’s audit trail requirements for drug certification (from personal experience).
After overcoming Acorn and Soros’ Sec. of State. project, and the corruption in most every SEIU administered state election office, we must vet every candidate for adherence to the Constitution, and remove him if they fails. Then we can replace federal and Supreme Court Justices because they have a sworn duty to address violations of the Constitution. The Senate can remove Justices. Federal judges are political appointees. The sudden appearance of a Russian- Educated attorney from the firm of Obama’s Senior Council, Robert Bauer, into the office a federal judge Carter who had promised discovery stinks - it is the appearance of corruption. Carter violated a witnessed promise of discovery if Orly Taitz would forgo her right to discovery since the Government Attorneys had not responded to a properly filed complaint. He lied, probably under duress.
Obama is in violation of the Constitution, having been born a British subject. Every justice is aware of this. Supreme Court justices have grounds for original jurisdiction. They can’t question elections, but they can question a violation of Constitutional eligibility. Roberts, who took three tries to administer the oath of office, understands this, and should be impeached. Only Justice Thomas has acknowledged the Court’s intransigence.
So jamese777, you are correct. Republicans knew, and protected McCain, because Hillary would surely be president if McCain were exposed late in the election cycle. It would be interesting to know who informed every Republican that they must keep quiet about Obama’s ineligibility. Republicans, understandably, didn’t have the stomach to remove McCain themselves during the primaries, even though some smart Democrats had spelled out his eligibility problems clearly. An amendment or clarification should make foreign-born children of military citizens eligible, but it hasn’t yet happened. The latest to try were Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama in SB 2678 in Feb of 2008.
And you are correct about Roberts. What do they have on Roberts? Was he the holdout? He knew before he administered the oath that Obama was in violation of Article II Section 1, and thus lied when he was sworn. The two Obama appointees should have recused themselves, but there is no law that I know of governing recusal. That they know the words from Minor v. Happersett, and have not done their duty is misprision - seldom used, but appropriate, just as natural born citizenship is a seldom used definition.
Don’t leave out the House of Representatives though, the vote on the Resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii statehood which contained the statement: “Birthplace of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama” was 378-0.
Now if only you could convince any single judge at any level of the judiciary in America of your legal theory....but alas....
By the way, Sotomayor and Kagan (and Bader-Ginsberg and Breuer as well) are irrelevant to granting Kerchner-Apuzzo’s Petition as the Supreme Court operates under “the rule of four.” It only takes four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case meaning that from among Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas, the birtherbots can’t find four Justices to agree to hear an Obama eligibility case.
I am just guessing but my money is on even the conservative, originalist Justices agreeing with a former Republican state Senator from Georgia who was nominated to be a federa judge by Senator Saxby Chambliss and who was appointed to the federal judiciary by George W. Bush and who wrote the following in dismissing an Obama eligibilty lawsuit and who imposed a $20,000 fine on the birther attorney in that suit for wasting the judge’s time with nonsense: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that it so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay R. Land
I’ll conclude with a little more grist for the conspiracy theory mill: since 2001, George Soros (and Teresa Kerry) have been major financial contributors to John McCain’s Reform Institute foundation.
Is it possible that George Soros actually chose the Republican opponent to run against Obama by insuring that McCain had more campaign funds than the other Republican candidates?
Your statement shows what the problem is. You seem to think that the issue is the birth certificate. A CERTIFIED CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH is required to prove that obama is NOT a Natural Born citizen. If obama’s opponents can not get a copy of obama’s birth records, they have no proof that he was born with a foreign father. Which would make him ineligible to be the President. It does not matter if everyone knows that his father was a foreign national, it has to be proven in court.
The Supreme Court rejected the case they did not want to remove obama from office.
CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN
obama IS NOT OR NEVER CAN BE the President of the United States as he is in violation of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. A bad decision by the Supreme Court does not change the facts.
An Obama eligibility lawsuit has already been adjudicated on the foreign parent issue: Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.
The original trial court in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels dismissed the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
The Indiana Court of Appeals was asked to overturn the lower court’s dismissal. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and offered an opinion on natural born citizen status under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 for both John McCain and Barack Obama: “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.”–Ankeny v Daniels, November 12, 2009.
The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court of Indiana to review the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court rejected hearing the appeal.
Ankeny has not been appealed to the federal courts.
Show me he doesn’t. Just produce the transcript that says he doesn’t. How hard would that be? ;)
I asked what your evidence is that Obama is loving this. If you have no evidence, say so.
No. As a general rule even if a public officer is later found to be ineligible to serve that doesn't void the official actions taken at the time.
I have at least as much evidence as the birthers do for their theory.
I asked you a simple, honest, polite question. You so far have not presented a shred of evidence substantiating a statement you presented as fact. (Your replies have been total obfuscation.) If you have any evidence, present it. If you have none, admit it.
obama is President because of widespread collusion amongst the elitist class of politicians and established news media who believe it is their birthright to rule over Americans ,not preserve America’s freedoms and greatness.
Before obama can be declared ineligible to be President , it first has to get into court. No case so far that has been dismissed based on the merits of the case. Therefore you have no basis for your argument. The Indiana case was based on a bad interpretation of the Ark and the Minor cases. It is pure B.S. and has no affect on the Constitution.
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.