Posted on 01/08/2012 3:49:48 PM PST by Snoopers-868th
UPDATE: An Alabama Court has announced that it will hear arguments as to whether Barack Hussein Obama II is in fact eligible to appear on the State Presidential Primary Ballot.
Several Alabama citizens have filed a lawsuit within the Alabama Circuit Court to "prevent certification of President Barack Obama for 2012 Alabama ballot access pending final hearing based on factual evidentiary hearings."
(Excerpt) Read more at libertynewsonline.com ...
Hugh, hugher, hughest!!!!!
“It is my opinion that Zero was not prepared for a ballot challenge and now it appears that there will be many. It is also my opinion that because the political climate has changed his chances in court become more risky. It has been mentioned in the Georgia thread that if GA declares him ineligible for the GA ballot that that fact makes him ineligible for any other state ballot.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This could be an electoral college issue and it is also the reason that liberal fascists have been trying to get rid of the electoral college since 2007. In 2008 the electoral college delegates from the various state democrat parties were ALL Obama campaign workers who had promised to vote Obama regardless of any challenge, and this was a FIRST in the history of the Democrat Party, done by Obama to “ensure” the popular vote, even though it was illegal because Obama does not meet Article II requirements of the US constitution.
The Georgia electoral college delegates would likely have to challenge Obama’s eligibility in November 2012. So would the Alabama delegates or any other state which refuses to place Obama on the ballot.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/electoral-college3.htm
Indonesian politics aint bean bag.
Don't worry, they always have the "ITS A CONSPIRACY!" card to fall back on.
The states through the electoral college elect the Prez. It’s implied through the constitution that each state determine who is on the ballot.
I don’t think it matters to a state what another state does.
Some of these dual citizens that will be running for the office of president in the next 50 years have no qualms about “eliminating” the opposition.
Our children are going to witness Mexican and Russian style elections in the United States.
I like Orly, but I find this report highly suspicious. When I travel, the only time my laptop, or the container it is in, is out of my sight is when it is in it's own tray cruising through the TSA xray thing.
ML/NJ
No!
It comes down to FRAUD. While it's true that judges would get to decide what NBC meant, no judge could reasonably decide that the April 27 BC image is not fraudulent were experts permitted to testify and be cross-examined in this regard.
ML/NJ
Obama Senior, or the “Roman” Obama who lives now in Ghana, who went to the Patrice Lumumba Friendship University?
So the BC might stand. Fine. He was born a Dual citizen, and lived as one as an adult. His Kenyan citizenship terminated at age 22 or 23. He not qualified.
So If Georgia certifies that Obama is not an NBC because he had Indonesian and Kenyan citizenships, other states should be able to accept that finding as well. A lawyer in PA should be able to introduce evidence of that certification of disqualification from GA. PA should accept it along with the BC from Hawaii that proves it.
No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. StatI? Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
----------------------------------------------------
That simply isn't so. The State Department issued travel advisories warning people about the dangers of travel to Pakistan during that period (the US Embassy in Islamabad had been attacked by radicals in 1979), but there was never a ban on Americans travelling to Pakistan.
I personally traveled to Pakistan several times during that period on my diplomatic passport, but there were plenty of non-diplomat, private Americans traveling to the country, e.g., teachers at the American school, businessmen, etc.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
What say all of you?
Oh!....
THAT! is why they insist on calling it the "DemocratIC Party".
Actually what the Constitution says in this regard is:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.So the Framers obviously considered the possibility that the acts, records, or proceeding might be falsified as the spoke about that such might need to be "proved." Pursuant to this Constitutional provision this act was passed:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken.So the image doesn't have a readily recognizable seal. It has an obviously non-conforming stamp on it ("TXE") And according to this act it is to receive no greater credit than any document issued by the State where the question is raised, which means that any laws in that State concerning fraud are applicable.Approved, May 26, 1790.
Consider an underaged person who presents a fraudulent out-of-state Driver's License in order to purchase alcoholic beverages.
ML/NJ
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
I thought about hitting abuse for this, but I looked at this BladeBryan's last 50 or so posts first. They all appear to be concerning the eligibility issue and they all appear to be in the nature of smoke-blowing, so I didn't. But still, I'm not sure he's a communist.
ML/NJ
Heh heh.
He said....communist.
Blade: “I expect the Alabama action, the topic of this thread, to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I think the Georgia Administrative Court is likely to address the merits, and I expect birthers will be even less happy with that outcome.”
Even if the Georgia court does find the merits of the case unconvincing, it’s the first case that is actually proceeding and not getting thrown out due to “lack of standing”. This means the judgment can be appealed to higher courts and hopefully reach the SCOTUS. The problem with most all previous litigation is that it could not be escalated and the NBC issue did not get addressed at the highest levels.
Based on what you have posted on previous threads, I’m assuming you are rooting for the Imposter In Chief (OBAMA).
Assuming a decision based on the NBC issue, and I believe we are talking about the GA case in the AL thread, I have to wonder who appeals what.
If Obama is declared ineligible does he appeal to the SCOTUS that has already spoken on the issue? And if so do they take the case or simply ignore it as the court has already ruled?
If the plaintiff loses does the SCOTUS take the case to re-affirm their previous ruling?
Another presentation of how convenient it is for lawyers to confuse issues by arguing out of both sides of their mouths so as to separate points in arguments but keep up the appearance of honesty/integrity. I refer to the inclusion of requiring both parents to be citizens in one part of the argument but in a later part ignoring such when making argument for what they want only on the basis of ‘soil’. These lawyers knew that citizenship of parents is entwined with place of birth and both together is the only honest establishment of ‘natural born citizen’. Just goes to tell me again that in my experience with lawyers ,even if they are judges,it is as necessary to verify as it is to trust. Sometimes difficult to decide which should be first.
Well, it is the AP.
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.