Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus
I was not aware that any federal court had found him to be a natural born citizen. If there are such cases, then I can only say that I agree with them. I suspect, though, that federal courts are most likely to try to disqualify a presidential candidate and I will be surprised if a federal court will ever do that. I really believe that they will want to stay out of this kind of thing.

If your list includes only state court cases, you have to keep in mind that it would be extremely gutsy for some superior court judge in some little county to try to disqualify a candidate for president so it is really hard to hold that against the folks who say he was unqualified. I doubt that a good lawyer would ever ask a state court to do something like that.

527 posted on 11/23/2015 4:21:31 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food

Tisdale v. Obama is a federal court case.


528 posted on 11/23/2015 4:35:47 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies ]

To: Tau Food

Here are brief excerpts from four federal court rulings.

U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.


Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09:
The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and, in fact, the House of Representatives, in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Congress. (2009) commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: A spurious claim questioning the presidents constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Courts placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010


532 posted on 11/23/2015 6:27:15 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson