Posted on 02/17/2011 8:31:53 PM PST by dalight
Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new “conference” on Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency.
Let’s research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.
It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name “Barack Hussein Obama” on it — since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is given.
This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed “Soetobakh” by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillbuzz.org ...
“Females and infants do not personally possess those rights and privileges In any state In the Union, but they are generally dependent upon adult males, through whom they enjoy the benefits of those rights and privileges; and It is a rule of common law, as well as of common sense, that females and Infants should in this respect partake of the quality of those adult males who belong to the same class and condition in society, and, of course, they will or will not be citizens as the adult males of the same class are or are not so. Nor do we mean to say that It Is necessary even for an adult male, to be a citizen, that he should be In the actual enjoyment of all those rights and privileges; but he may even not possess those qualifications of property, of age, or of residence which most of the states prescribe as requisites to the enjoyment of some of their highest privileges and Immunities, and yet be a citizen. But to be a citizen It is necessary that he should be entitled to the enjoyment of those privileges and immunities upon the same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens, and, unless he is so entitled, he cannot, in the proper sense of the term, be a ‘citizen.’ In England, birth in the country was alone sufficient to make any one a subject Even a villein or a slave born within the King's allegiance is according to the principles of the common law a subject, but it never can be admitted that he is a citizen. One may, no doubt, be a citizen by birth as well as a subject, but subject and citizen are evidently words of different import, and it indisputably requires something more to make a citizen than it does to make a subject. It is, in fact, not the place of a man's birth, but the rights and privileges he may be entitled to enjoy, which make him a citizen.
It is you who believes in the conspiracy theories. It is you who is involved in the conspiracy. We know your agenda. We know Mr. Rogers places his personal agenda above the Constitution.
Mr. Rogers spouts peregrine obama is transcendent to the Constitution.
Mr. Rogers wants us to believe the children of an transient alien and a citizen are natural born citizens.
History has shown the children of aliens and citizens are spurious.
Spurious children are not a part of the Founders meaning “we give to our posterity”.
We grow weary of your idolatries.
One trick ponies.
So, apparently your position is:
IF, as many believe, there are unique and unprecendented notable irregularities with the history and possible Constitutional eligibility of Barry Barack Dunham Hussien Soetoro Obama,
and whether cowardice/inertia/intimidation is preventing a govt body, court/Congress/DOJ, etc., with the authority to refrain from seeking answers to said possible irregularities to verify that our Constitution and the rule of law are intact and preserved in the man holding the office of world’s most powerful leader ..
that’s acceptable to you?
Especially now, with this country and the world on fire, with anarchy threatening and America and our freedoms being destroyed more every day by this alien occupier ?
And you’ll just spend your endless wind here, doing nothing more than countering any research offered here to seek possible clues and answers to this monstrous and despicable puzzle that threatens the very survival of America as we know it ?
Are you also sympatico with the Wisconsin legislators who ran out of state, white stripes on their cowardly backs, evading and shamefully abrogating their honorable civic engagement, mocking those with righteous intent and honor to their country, because it was easier to run and fling lies and mockery than deal with an uncomfortable showdown ?
That there may be no govt authority or official with the courage to get these answers does not invalidate the actual facts of the TRUTH. The truth just IS, whatever it is. As Americans, it is our right to have it, our solemn obligation to seek it.
God forbid I should ever have to occupy a foxhole with you.
In this case, they seem to be asking: is this man (Obama) eligible? And if not, and he is POTUS de facto but not POTUS de jure, and not thus authorized to issue orders as CinC, as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, do I owe an obligation instead to Biden.
I’m wondering if any SCOTUS determination that eligibility requires a) born on US soil and b) 2 US citizen parents, would they remand the case to the lower court, and order it to conduct discovery rather than answering themselves the eligibility question specifically as it relates to Obama?
If you recall, or have read the history of Watergate, Nixon’s downfall came after the SCOTUS decided that his tapes had to be revealed to the investigating committee. SCOTUS didn’t effect his removal from office; they merely greased the skids. His resignation was a result of the revelation of the contents of the tapes.
So, if (say) they interpreted NBC per the Vatell definition, and remanded to the lower court with an order to open discovery, it could be thru that process, and not a direct SCOTUS judgment, that Obama could be removed from the office he’s holding de facto.
I’m not a lawyer, and I sure as hell don’t understand the workings of the SCOTUS, or courts generally, but they seem to act in very Byzantine ways. Taking on responsibility for any such major Constitutional question is SCOTUS’s responsibility, but they could leave the ultimate ‘nitty gritty’ work to be conducted in another, lower court. If that were to happen, Congress and the public would become highly engaged, and the matter could be settled without upheaval of epic proportions. (yes, upheaval, but we survived Watergate and Monicagate, we could survive this)
james, did you even read what the court said and how it described Vattel?? This was pure and perhaps intentional stupidity. "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century." We know the SCOTUS has frequently and authoritively cited the Law of Nations. It's not a random, irrelvant 'treatise.' Second, the court blows off the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as "quotations of Members of Congress." John Marshall is rolling over in his grave and passing wind at the Indiana appeals court.
Isn’t that what “in forum” has? Each person’s posts going back for quite a while (not sure how long, never been interested enough), but I’ve seen some of the pro’s here hit up another poster with a quote of his/hers from years ago.
Good point, Ed.
Sounds like a realistic scenario.
Well thats half of the battle.. I use this to check what someone has said in past, but mostly to get a sense if I am talking to someone real or just a troll. Still it restricts to posts only which is good. Now if I could just date bound the selection I would be delighted.
The search options are not my fav thing about FR. I can never find anything. But after 10 years, I still can’t bold, underline, or use different fonts, either. Forget about posting graphics!
So, apparently your position is:
IF, as many believe, there are unique and unprecendented notable irregularities with the history and possible Constitutional eligibility of Barry Barack Dunham Hussien Soetoro Obama,
and whether cowardice/inertia/intimidation is preventing a govt body, court/Congress/DOJ, etc., with the authority to refrain from seeking answers to said possible irregularities to verify that our Constitution and the rule of law are intact and preserved in the man holding the office of world’s most powerful leader ..
that’s acceptable to you?
No, my position is that Obama Sr presents no legal problem for Obama Jr to be President - that the Founder’s intent was to require that someone running for President be born in the USA, with no additional requirement for citizen parents.
It turns out the in forum has turned out to be quite useful.
I am afraid that this where they have us in a corner, Ed. The SCOTUS is an APPEALS COURT. That is that things are brought up to them that have been through lower courts. Then the SCOTUS may elect to hear them, if they judge Constitutional issues are in play, or not, letting the lower court's decision stand.
In regard to a challenge to persons who may wrongfully hold Federal Office, the Constitution as amended says that the appeal has to come through the Federal District Court in DC. That court has immense power, and so far it has been used against the case in two ways: standing, and outright rejection of the claim. The case has come nowhere near being heard on its merits
Furthermore, the plaintiffs' lawyer in this case is Holder, who is also the President's lawyer. If Holder refuses the case because of this conflict, which option he must ponder for months on end, of course, then the court itself may appoint another attorney to represent the plaintiffs, or it may not. That option will be dragged out for months of intense legal maneuver as well.
Hemenway, having been rebuffed in the lower courts, has actually pulled off quite a legal coup in getting his motion, and then request, for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan into conference, where the justices vote on whether or not they will take the case. That unfortunately, is still a long way from being heard by the court or actually ruling on the issues of NBC, etc. It is possible that Hemenway has shamed them into taking some action, although what that will be is impossible to tell!
Add two words. "Right away." The mills of the courts grind slow, but exceedingly fine. But our team has emotionally tied our thoughts on this to Obama/Soetoro. The issue goes far beyond him.
In reality, this issue may not reach the courts until long after Obama is gone. But the questions must be answered, both in regard to Article II, and Amendment 14. A significant portion of the voters believes Obama/Soetoro to be ineligible. It is a grievance that must be addressed, even if not redressed.
Even if eligibility is not a concern of a majority of the voters, any uncertainty weakens the office. That is a danger to the Republic.
“God forbid I should ever have to occupy a foxhole with you.”
I doubt you were ever in the military, but I wouldn’t want to share anything with a liar.
Kenny, Holder is NOT the attorney in this case. The plaintiffs/petitioners are Hollister and Hemenway. Leave aside Hemenway for purposes of this reply. Hollister is represented by Hemenway. The defendant/respondent (among others) is Soetero/Obama, and in this case he is represented by Perkins Coie. His attorney was Robt Bauer, before he left to become WH counsel, and another P-C attorney is now on the case. Look at the docket posted upthread.
The SCOTUS can use its power to interpret the Framers’ intent on the NBC language for the BIG Constitutional question. It can then remand the case back to the USCA-DC or USDC-DC to conduct discovery as to Obama/Soetoro’s eligibility specifically. At that lower court level, Obama/Soetoro would be afforded the opportunity through discovery to establish that he was a) born in HI, and b) met the NBC eligibility requirement as interpreted. Or not.
This is merely one of a dozen things the Court COULD do. I’m not too sure what they will do, other than punt. This route would leave SCOTUS ‘clean’ from having made the decision to unseat a sitting president, and leave the ‘dirty’ work to a lower court, to Congress and the public. But at some point, maybe not in our lifetimes, that Court will have to make that NBC interpretation.
That court is acting as sort of a gate keeper for Holder, keeping him (and Obama) out of the fray. Should they ever decide to consider a motion for a writ within the lifetime of anyone now living, then Holder might be forced into action.
The bottom line is that we are living through an anti-constitutional coup and their reluctance to use the power they do have to counter-act it is unconscionable, IMHO.
I don’t THINK that there’s been a quo warranto filed in THIS case. Will have to go back and review.
I don’t know why Perkins Coie is representing Obama/Soetoro, other than maybe the case was filed pre-Inauguration? Still, I imagine there is communication and coordination between DOJ attorneys and Perkins Coie on how to proceed. Even in cases where the US Attorneys are representing Obama/Soetoro, I can’t imagine the ever-so-brilliant P-C attorneys would let “lesser” government attorneys make all the decisions. Their overall attitude, both DOJ and P-C, seems to be that the courts are doing their jobs for them, so why do anything.
Biden was not chosen by a president, but rather a presidential candidate. He was then elected to the office of vice president by the voters.
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.