Posted on 10/30/2008 9:43:43 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday's election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation.
Democratic attorney Philip Berg had filed a lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because of possible birth in Kenya, but as WND reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
Philip J. Berg The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
To those with a firm grasp of reality. I can conceive of not possible reason for the Supreme Court to declare the election date unconstitutional. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Let's say this all happens...
Elected
Electoral College Certifies
Sworn In
Impeached 3 years later as a usurper...
Does that negate all the laws and programs he institutes? Sort of like that fake judge that marries folks...the marriage is voided?
Obama already has a lot of chums in the justice department:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2113652/posts
The Justice department is contributing more to Obama than “any other executive branch agency.”
If he wins, he will purge Justice the same way Bill Clinton did. I think it’s safe to say that Janet Reno will have nothing on the Secretary of Justice that BO will appoint if he wins.
Our free speech will be attacked the same as Australia:
Australia to implement mandatory internet censorship [use it or lose it alert]
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html
So guess what? We need to win.
Me either.
The BEST ruling the supremes could hand down would be a 48 hour order of “Produce the Documents or Remove Yourself as a Candidate”.
Roe v. Wade proves that the SCOTUS has gone mad. And don’t forget Kelo. Anything is possible with activist judges. So why is it rational to train yourself to not be able to conceive anything regarding the SCOTUS?
Outside of a few political websites, Berg's case has gotten zero media coverage. Even in being turned down, he gets one last shot at raising the question in some minds before Election Day. Sure glad he's been identified as a Hillary supporter rather than one of ours.
Breaking news got yanked twice, so I’ll post it here:
Drudge Headline:
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
I wonder if they complained that the plane smells bad?
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS
[to be replaced by Pravda, DU, KOSS, and Mad Magazine.]
I heard Boortz whining yesterday about 23% of Texans thinking Obama is Muslim. I’m glad he doesn’t control free speech. Are that many Texans whack-jobs? I think not. I think there are too many snobs failing to connect.
I wonder if that was from a real survey, or perhaps it was a number Boortz pulled from his hiney? If it was real, then it's huge, because most people who think it wouldn't mention it to a pollster!
I don’t expect any court to side with Berg, especially at this point, but he’s keeping the issue alive and stirring the pot to generate doubt. I like it!
23% of Texans convinced Obama is a Muslim
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79496
Ditto that, FRiend. We shouldn’t count on the SCOTUS. We should count on ourselves. Word is getting out. Rush is fed up with all the emails demanding he say something. I think we should not target resisters but go after people ‘on the street’ / email lists, etc. That’s making a difference.
Yep. The bottom line is that Obama is hiding whatever it is he’s hiding, so he does NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt.
bump!
My question is: "What is the utility of 'public records' if the public, and even the government, can only access them with the permission of a private individual?"
The purpose of "public records" is a PUBLIC purpose, not an individual purpose. Public agencies, private individuals, and Joe the Plumber, should be able to look at "public records" for any legal purpose. They may, perhaps not be allowed to have a certified copy of those records, but they should be able to inspect them.
Wow! But then, this is Texas, where they know bovine scat when they see it. If only the rest of America had half the sense that my Texan friends possess!
Are you saying the Court has the authority to change the date if it is unconstitutional such as scheduling it after the date the Electoral College votes are counted? Or that it has no authority in the matter at all?
As I have said in other discussions of this matter, if the elections were held during the Civil War it won’t be stopped now. Can you imagine how bad a precedent it would have set to have Lincoln declare no elections in 1862 and 1864?
Considering election dates are not mentioned in the Constitution I'd say the court has no cause to take the matter up.
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.