Posted on 11/10/2008 8:27:51 PM PST by virgin
NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE US SUPREME COURT - DONOFRIO v. WELLS - STANDING NOT CHALLENGED IN LOWER COURTS - OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOT MAIN ISSUE
(Excerpt) Read more at democratic-disaster.com ...
bump
"In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof."
http://comments.obamacrimes.com/blog...9.html#1187141
I cannot open this link, might just be me.
my bad...that post was on 11/2. So the “Monday” would be 11/3? I’m not really sure.
I didn’t see that reference in BillyBob’s post. I think you misread it. He was referring to prior instances. Not current electors.
“Pray for Justice Thomas. An honorable man.
I’m with you. I think he’ll do the right thing no matter what. “
And it won’t hurt that Justice Thomas is also a minority! A Black man with honor, gives a ruling that can be seen as impartial.
Justice Thomas hasn’t forgotten what the left served him at his confirmation.
Thanks for the erudition.
The key then, is to have him disqualified BEFORE the electors cast their ballots, as they can only vote for a qualified candidate.
I would think that to disqualify him before the Electoral College vote would require a Supreme Court ruling of disqualification.
Is this possible based on the suit?
“Simply providing the documents would be so easy to do that I still wonder why Obama would not just bring all this controversy to an end and release the documents!”
Best case, his OCB has something embarrassing on it that does not disqualify him, only might have cost him votes.
Like his parents listed his religion as Muslim. Something that was out of his control, but still a liability. Or birth father unknown.
Well, we’ve got THAT going for us; which is good......
To bring a suit, you need to be able to show real damages, and whatever admin transition W has underwrought - including TS intel briefings - is certainly incurred damage of literally the highest order.
Who might be able to obtain and retain ‘standing’ over the transition?
With respect to the birth certificate and the US Supreme Court, as someone with extensive experience, I had looked on with interest to your opinion. Today, when I first noticed this Donfrio suit that went to the Supreme Court, my impression was that if this had merit, you would weigh in.
You clearly weighed in on the Berg case and your quote above is clearly applicable to Berg. Those of us who frequent FR are very familiar with Berg's case as it is a frequent thread on FR. As many of us are deeply concerned about the impending Obama presidency, we often try to get hope in any way possible. I am one interested in facts and have appreciated your input and look to and accept your professional judgement.
I know you are careful with words and the words (particularly “misdescribed in public”) that you began your response with to a question posted to you about this specific case gives me some pause. I only became aware of this case today, yet the tone is that this case has been around. Given your assessment, perhaps in your initial words, you have lumped this case with Berg's case and made a general comment about what you saw.
Nevertheless, I have to ask to the question, is your opinion regarding your analysis of the Donofrio case described in the thread and not an opinion on the Berg case?
As someone, who thinks the Obama presidency has too strong a likelihood of being a disaster to this country, perhaps I am trying to hold on some irrational hope of the country being saved.
Congressman Billybob, a constitutional lawyer, answered my analysis with a partial affirmation. But he also laid out the only case by which the Supreme Court could be drawn into making a decision before December 15, the day the Electoral College meets.
What are you smoking?
I never said word one about 0bama’s citizenship, I pointed out the proof that McCain WAS a natural born citizen and ONLY a natural born citizen, and the reasons why, according to the laws in place at the time of his birth in the Panama Canal zone.
That said, 0bama’s a charlatan and usurper, who has no legal right to the office he may soon occupy.
I’ve tried to keep up with what is going on and I saw some questions about some of the cases. Here is a list of those that had questions:
Leo Donofrio case:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
Hannity forum talking about Leo’s case:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1147121
Hawaii judge sets hearing in Barack Obama birth certificate case - Andy Martin November 18th:
http://www.pr-inside.com/hawaii-judge-sets-hearing-in-barack-r888486.htm
Sir- is this or is it not your post?:
[Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:38:03 AM • 64 of 234
Don W to BonRad
All those words, and you don’t know the difference between
naturalized (has gone through the bestowing of citizenship upon the foreign born process)
and natural born (first breath inhaled on American soil)]
McCain’s qualification is in no doubt to anyone who’s scratched the surface and the analogy is wrong
and extremely simplistic.
Berg has given clear enough explanation for me (see points 41-55):
Phil J. Berg files amended complaint in Berg v. Obama - Oct 5 2008
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/28
I hold this valid unless someone shows better. As stated in my post, Martin hasn’t researched this aspect yet (but initially doubts as the Soetoro adoption wasn’t exercised in Hawaiian court) and I haven’t researched TexasDarlin (and she will qualify here and there that she hasn’t fully settled technical legal conclusions). WorldNetDaily’s Farah gave an editor’s note dismissive of the validities of Berg’s contention (I haven’t checked to see if Berg’s early early Oct appraisal was available by Aug 23) in:
Democrat sues Sen. Obama over ‘fraudulent candidacy’
Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims
August 23, 2008 By Drew Zahn
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
But now we have another WND writer repeating the assertion /speculation some 24 hrs ago and not being so noted by editor
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80710
The Constitution still matters – Janet Porter
Posted: November 11, 2008 1:00 am Eastern
See what Porter refers to as Exhibits C,D,E, in the short article
She includes:
In addition, according to U.S. law, from “Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986,” a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama’s birth must be:
1.A natural-born citizen;
2.Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
3.If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Since Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
Hope all had a good, edifying Veteran’s Day.
Thanks for the ping. This should be interesting.
If Justice Thomas denies it, I wonder how many people here will accept it or turn against him. If he doesn’t, I’m sure the Dems and the MSM will demonize him even further.
“Should there be a suspicion as to Obama’s qualifications under Article II, Section 1, one representative and one senator may challenge a state’s Electoral Votes for Obama. Then the senators would return to the Senate chamber, and the House and Senate would separately debate the matter.“
Actually, there is no explicit provision in Article II, Section I that specifies this procedure. However, under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18, Congress has the power :
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Congress has established Electoral College law in support of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 and is listed as Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended). Specifically, your argument lies in Section 15.
I am agreement with you up to this point – Congress passed an Election Law under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18. It provides for objections to the electoral voting process, by members of Congress. It IS a way to disqualify electoral votes, but NOT necessarily the ONLY way. Also, it does NOT address the issue of a candidate’s eligibility verification, nor does it state that Congress has the SOLE power to raise objections and/or verify eligibility.
One may INFER that is what the law means, but this has NEVER been challenged to SCOTUS on the basis on constitutionality. Therefore, it is not settled law - just because the law is on the books, does NOT make it constitutional.
You are correct – this issue comes down to standing. But, in this case, it is NOT specified in the Constitution. NOR is it specified in U.S. law.
For issues not specified in the Constitution or in settled U.S. law, the 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the concept of “original intent” seem to apply.
The 9th Amendment states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The concept of “original intent” has been embraced by SCOTUS on numerous occasions when the Constitution and U.S. Law have failed to specifically address an issue. Examples include Gideon v. Wainwright (right to a court-appointed attorney), Miranda v. Arizona (rights need to be read to a suspect), United States v. Nixon (executive privilege), and Roe v. Wade (abortion – a “right to privacy” issue).
NONE of these aforementioned cases has any actual basis in the Constitution or in settled U.S. law, yet SCOTUS decided that they did – via the concept of “original intent”.
Under the concept of “original intent”, this is what I see:
1. CLEARLY, the Founding Fathers DID NOT want a non natural born citizen to be eligible as POTUS.
2. The 9th Amendment allows citizens to claim rights not enumerated in the Constitution or other U.S. law. (i.e. bringing suit to SCOTUS when others such as the Solicitor General do not bring a case forward).
3. The 10th Amendment deems that the powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it, are vested in the States or the people (in this case, the people having the right to ensure an eligible candidate).
Therefore, in absence of the current Executive Department (i.e. the Attorney General and the Solicitor General) enforcing the Constitution, nor Congress ensuring a candidate’s eligibility, ANY citizen SHOULD be allowed to demand verification.
As far as:
“Congress is a sovereign body, and in theory no court, even the US Supreme Court, has the authority to order Congress to do something.”
Although not vested with any authority or military force to enforce any of its decisions, SCOTUS DID establish the concept of “judicial review” in Marbury v. Madison and, over the last 232 years HAS become the de facto final word in the public’s mind.
If SCOTUS were to order the BC verification, Congress would go along with it – or face the wrath of the electorate in the next election.
“The Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that all persons born in the United States are citizens at birth (regardless of the status of either parent or both).” Um, you must be mistaken since Barack Obama himself assumed the Constitutional rights of newly born alive children did not become valid by live birth, at least in Illinois, and he is the senator from Illinois.
Youbring up a VERY interesting point - that baby born with Down’s Syndrome taking a single breath outside the womb, became a U.S. citizen at birth ... therefore Obama advocated murder!
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.