It was small, but do you remember this SCOTUS vigil on December 5, 2008?
How about a humongous one this time?!
Posted on 09/26/2011 7:56:20 PM PDT by circumbendibus
The dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president erupted during the 2008 election campaign and featured among others a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes against California election officials who did not check whether Obama was eligibile. Now the 2012 campaign is charging ahead at full throttle, and the issue is still alive.
That's because the case was before the U.S. Supreme Court for a conference today. A conference is a meeting at which the justices decide which cases they will review. To date, none of the Obama eligibility challenges that have reached the high court have been accepted. It could be as long as a week or more before an announcement comes from the court.
Attorney Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation is handling the case.
"If the U.S. Supreme court agrees to hear this case, and we pray that it will, it will send shock waves through the Washington political establishment," Kreep said. "It will mean that the Supreme Court is going to follow the lead of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals justice who has publicly commented that this is an important constitutional issue."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It was small, but do you remember this SCOTUS vigil on December 5, 2008?
How about a humongous one this time?!
By the time a new POTUSA is installed Obama will have been long gone with many dollars supplied by enablers like Soros and his own stash. No,it is very much the best to expose Obama and all of his enablers and punish them all for creating chaos in the USA.
If apparatus to get Obummer and cronies in dutch simply does not exist until 2012-2013 — we must bow to reality.
Thanks for the ping.
Unfortunately, I don’t think throwing Zero out of office will automatically void all of his official acts. I think those acts would still be valid under the “de facto officer” doctrine.
The US Supreme Court has cited the following description of the “de facto officer” doctrine (Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 (1888)):
“An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid, so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office are exercised:
...Under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public.”
I know some here will argue that Zero’s “ineligibity” is in fact “known to the public” but I disagree. Many in the public suspect him of not being a natural born citizen, including me, and a minority of the public believe he is not a natural born citizen either because his father was a foreigner or because they believe Zero was born outside the US, but when we speak of the public at large most people would say they either he is NBC or they are not sure or don’t bother them because they are busy watching “Dancing with the Stars”.
PLEASE! Are you implying you don't think there was/ and is an active coverup?
Are you also wondering whether there is an actual coverup in FAST AND FURIOUS (GUNRUNNER)?
Are you waiting for the MSM to tell you the TRUTH?
The REPUBS are playing the game such that this is NOT settled by the courts, they want Americans to remove this clown from office. If the IMPEACHMENT MOVE is played, they fear that the DEMS will play Bill Clinton's "I WAS A VICTIM" counter move
“what really bothers me about this whole thing, is that apparently NO ONE has “standing” to do anything about this subject, which is almost as alarming to me as an actual coverup.”
Yes, this issue has risen to near the top for me when it comes to Obama. Who DOES have standing? As far as I can tell no one does. No Person, No Organization, not even G*D Almighty seems to have standing.
And if all that is true... This is not a representative republic as the founders gave us. This is a serial Monarchy where we choose our monarch every four years. That is until the latest one decides he REALLY likes the job and wants to make it permanent.
Also, I don't believe he acted in a vacuum in regards to this issue. This issue would bring down some of the biggest names of the DNC. Pelosi is one who comes to mind. If such a conspiracy were to even be suspected to exist, the undoing of much of the harmful legislation and repeal of the same would be much more forthright.
“Yes, this issue has risen to near the top for me when it comes to Obama. Who DOES have standing? As far as I can tell no one does. No Person, No Organization, not even G*D Almighty seems to have standing.”
You seem confused. The case at issue is Keyes v. Bowen, in which standing was never at issue. It’s a California state case, so the federal standing doctrine doesn’t apply.
McCain would, since he can claim damages if Obama is actually ineligible. But that's about it.
If memory serves both Kreep and Taitz have had their filings discussed in conference already. And all of them have been turned down.
Keyes v Bowen;
Background
Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate against Secretary of State Bowen, President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and the Electors on November 13, 2008, and filed an amended petition on February 23, 2009.
According to plaintiffs, the voters have an expectation that compliance with the minimum qualifications for office will be confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. The gravamen of their action is there is a reasonable doubt President Obama is a natural born citizen, as is required to become President of the United States (U.S. Const., art. II, § 1), and the Secretary of State had a ministerial duty to verify that President Obama met the constitutional qualifications for office before certifying him for inclusion on the ballot.
Plaintiffs also alleged that the Electors had an affirmative duty to discover whether the presidential candidate was a natural born citizen, since they were required to vote for the President “in the manner directed by the Constitution” (3 U.S.C. § 8), and that one of the persons nominated as an elector, “Ilene Huber,” died on October 22, 2001, and a woman by the name of “Ilene Haber” was permitted to vote in place of Ms. Huber, without being elected to take her place as required by the Elections Code.
Plaintiffs asked the trial court to issue a writ of mandate barring the Secretary of State from certifying the names of the Electors and from transmitting to each elector a certificate of election until documentary proof was produced and verified showing that any future presidential candidate is qualified to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs also asked the court to bar “future California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that any future Presidential candidate is qualified to serve as President of the United States.” In addition, plaintiffs sought to bar the Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote unless they complied with the Elections Code requirements concerning replacing absent electors.
Secretary of State Bowen demurred on the grounds that (1) the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against her because she did not have a ministerial duty to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates; (2) the petition was moot given that the election had been held; (3) the controversy was not ripe as to future elections; (4) whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office was a matter committed to Congress and the federal courts; and (5) the alleged substitution of Ilene Haber for the deceased Ilene Huber merely represented a typographical error.
President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and the Electors demurred on the grounds that (1) the petition did not allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action as they had no ministerial duty to provide to the Secretary of State, or verify proof of, qualifications to hold office, (2) the petition did not seek any relief against the President or Vice-President, (3) the state court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, which was governed by federal law and required objections to presidential qualifications to be lodged with Congress, (4) the petition was moot, and (5) to the extent that the petition sought relief as to future elections, it suffered from a misjoinder of parties because the court could not know who the candidates or electors would be in the future.
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court sustained both demurrers, ruling the Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws are enforced, but plaintiffs had not identified a state election law imposing a ministerial duty to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates.
The court dispensed with the claim concerning California Elector “Ilene Huber” by taking judicial notice of a document showing that the name had been a typographical error and that “Ilene Haber” was the actual elector, not an improper replacement.
The court sustained the demurrer of the President and Vice-President, noting the petition did not seek any relief against them and did not identify any ministerial duty on their part that they failed to perform and, thus, failed to state a cause of action as to them.
Similarly, the court ruled plaintiffs failed to identify any ministerial duty the Electors failed to perform. The requirement they vote “in the manner directed by the Constitution” merely refers to the mechanics of casting votes, found in the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Electors did not have an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate was a natural born citizen and, in fact, were required by statute to vote for their party’s nominee.
The court also found the petition was moot as to all parties with respect to the 2008 General Election because the Electoral College had voted and Mr. Obama had been inaugurated as President of the United States. It was not ripe as to future elections because the issues were not framed with sufficient concreteness and immediacy to allow the court to render a conclusive and definitive judgment rather than an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events.
And the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the subject of the action in that federal law establishes election procedures and the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice-President. The appropriate procedure was an action before the United States Congress.
Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 United States Code section 15. In the trial court’s words, plaintiffs’”belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.”
“IIRC the case will hinge on whether the lower court ruling is upheld that Keyes and the other candidate did not have a right to contest the eligibility of Obama because they ‘couldn’t win.’”
You do not recall correctly. There was no such issue in Keyes v. Bowen, the case at issue here. You are probably thinking of Barnett v. Obama, and even there the District Court ruling *rejected* that argument.
“And it’s maddening that there is no way to get a read out of the Court as to what the proper way IS to get a redress of this grievance.”
One way you might consider would be to read the original court’s opinion, that the higher courts have so-far affirmed, which includes:
“The Secretary of State persuasively argues that the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15.” — Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, Keyes v. Bowen
“I’m not going to guess what the Supreme Court will or won’t do.”
I am. They will deny the petition for writ of certiorari. That’s a very safe prediction for two reasons: First, the Court did not call for response briefs, which they invariably obtain before granting cert. Calling for response requires just one justice. Second, this is the same birther nonsense that courts have flushed many times before.
The denial will probably be without further comment. Most likely it will come out this Friday or next Monday.
“Why did the 9th circuit out of the blue grant an appeal to Taitz and Kreep? Dunno.”
Would you like to know? It’s because at the Circuit Court level there is no discretion to grant or deny appeal. As long as the party is appealing from a District Court in the circuit, files the right paperwork, and pays the fees, the Circuit court will take the appeal.
By the time a new POTUSA is installed Obama will have been long gone with many dollars supplied by enablers like Soros and his own stash. No,it is very much the best to expose Obama and all of his enablers and punish them all for creating chaos in the USA.
Long gone? He may be out of office, but not out of reach. He will be guarded by Secret Service agents. He can’t run and hide unless he takes out his SS detail.
Then where is he going to hide? Iran?
You are right. SCOTUS will not touch this with a 10 ft pole. They have decided to let the Congress and beauracracy change the Constitution. A non natural born citizen has been allowed to become elected to the presidency and now there is a push on to put Marco Rubio on the GOP ticket as VP for 2012. If that is allowed to happen then we all need to just sit down and STFU as the issue of who is eligible will have been settled.
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.