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

Skip to comments.

Supremes to review citizenship arguments-Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices
World Net Daily ^ | 11-21-08 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 11/20/2008 11:46:54 PM PST by STARWISE

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review.

This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; calero; certifigate; justicethomas; leodonofrio; madeinkenya; mccain; notthisshiitagain; obama; obamatruthfile; obamatruthsquad; scotus; thekenyan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-299 next last
To: Gemsbok; All
511 does not mention naturalized citizens.

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States; Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘nat2 ural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Con3 stitution of the United States.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:18 Apr 28, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR511.RS SR511 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS

161 posted on 11/21/2008 9:36:48 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

bump...


162 posted on 11/21/2008 9:40:42 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack

They better make sure the Constitution is upheld. I certainly do think they’ll take the case.


163 posted on 11/21/2008 9:42:29 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
Everybody, please read this and take action. This is picking up steam. Obama's state secret: His birth certificate!
164 posted on 11/21/2008 9:57:54 AM PST by Free America52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Correct, because they rejected any clause that would have broadened the scope of NB status that the Senator was attempting to inject into SR511.


165 posted on 11/21/2008 10:06:33 AM PST by Gemsbok (Follow the trail,...,.,.,.,..... I know where it leads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Free America52

Petition signed.

Over 15,000 so far.


166 posted on 11/21/2008 11:12:44 AM PST by stevestras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

I understand that they require 2/3 of the states to ratify an ammendment. That will not matter.

If he was forced to relinquish citizenship as a child to become an Indonesian citizen - and is therefore no longer a natural born citizen - they will pass a law that states natural born children are incapable of deciding for themselves and therefore cannot relinquish their status until the age of consent.

Basically they will state that a parent may relinquish citizenship of their child but the natural born status returns if the child once again becomes a citizen of the US.

The only thing they cannot overcome is if he was actually born in Kenya as a Kenyan citizen. No getting around that....but they will do their best to find a way.

There is zero chance he will not be sworn in on time in January. None. Whatever political manuvering or language contortions they have to do to get him there, he will be there taking the oath.


167 posted on 11/21/2008 11:36:06 AM PST by Personal Responsibility (I love liberty. I hate equality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

Our Forefather’s in their wisdom established our government in three parts to check and balance each other. They specifically stated the requirements for the office of the president.
THe SCOTUS has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately the founders did not establish who would vet each candidate to determine eligibility.

Nor did they establish “standing” if such a case were ever to be presented.. Standing , a arbitrary term established for the smooth working of the judiciary system, is not a condition established by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has no choice but to hear and act in mass on at least one of these cases......The COnstitution is in crisis.


168 posted on 11/21/2008 11:36:19 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
A detroit radio station called the Kenyan embassy after the election of Obama. After a lot of trouble they get through to the ambassador of Kenya.

The ambassador of Kenya says that obama was born in Kenya and that his birth place has become a national shrine.

Listen to the recording here

Be sure to download the recording as well. The chances of it remaining online for long are remote.
169 posted on 11/21/2008 11:51:58 AM PST by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; xzins; wmfights; Forest Keeper; jude24
Whose job is it to verify eligibility?

I would think that would be the job of the Supreme Court. They are the ones charged with swearing in the President. Since they are charged with upholding the Constitution, they would be obligated to ensure that the person they are swearing in is qualified for the office.

Since this issue has been brought to their attention, I think they are obligated to rule on it before the electoral college votes. I think it would be a dereliction of the constitutional duties to refuse to consider it. They may be free to ignore the evidence and rule any way they please, but I do believe they have an obligation to consider the issue.

170 posted on 11/21/2008 12:22:09 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I agree. It has to be Scotus. They interpret the constitution and they swear in the president.


171 posted on 11/21/2008 12:27:04 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Electors are under state law, and most states mandate electors to follow the popular vote.

The states have no jurisdiction over the electoral college. Even if the state has laws, the electors are free to vote for anybody they want. State laws mandating that electors follow the popular vote are unconstitutional. The state sends a delegate of electors and they are free to do as they please.

172 posted on 11/21/2008 12:34:28 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Girlene; xzins; wmfights; Forest Keeper; jude24
I would think that would be the job of the Supreme Court. They are the ones charged with swearing in the President. Since they are charged with upholding the Constitution, they would be obligated to ensure that the person they are swearing in is qualified for the office.

It makes sense, but since it's never been an issue before who knows?

All the evidence indicates he was not born here, or if he was his mother renounced his citizenship so he could attend an Islamic school in Indonesia. But can anyone see the SCOTUS invalidating his election? I don't think they will do it.

173 posted on 11/21/2008 12:36:09 PM PST by wmfights (Elections have Consequences!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

If they had in front of them evidence that Obama was not a citizen, I’m fairly certain that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito would not be silent.


174 posted on 11/21/2008 12:42:09 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
There is zero chance he will not be sworn in on time in January. None. Whatever political manuvering or language contortions they have to do to get him there, he will be there taking the oath.

Oh, goody, our first coup. Now we can be like all the other countries.

175 posted on 11/21/2008 12:45:00 PM PST by thesetruths
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank
They acknowledged that they were inelegible to run for president because of that BRITISH citizenship, and lack of natural born status

That's because they were in fact British citizens (not dual citizens) prior to the founding of the United States. Obama is a different matter. Naturally born in the US (we assume) and also possessing of British and/or Kenyan citizenship which he later lost.

The fact that he never acted upon his Brit citizenship and let it expire is irrelevant

It's very relevant. If BO was born on US soil, and no longer has Kenyan or British citizenship, then USSC will comment that he has no split loyalty, and will rule in his favor.
176 posted on 11/21/2008 12:53:21 PM PST by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

Yeah, probably. I just like to keep a little bit of hope alive so I don’t get thoroughly depressed.


177 posted on 11/21/2008 12:57:23 PM PST by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder

Donofrios arguement has nothing to do with Obama, it was the status of his father. Since Obamas father was a British subject, Obama is not considered natural born per the Constitution.


178 posted on 11/21/2008 1:01:23 PM PST by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

I have read the passages referring to 0’s birth. Where does he admit to any Nationality?


179 posted on 11/21/2008 1:07:47 PM PST by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mashood
The US Constitution says nothing about one's parents. In fact, it does not define "natural born".

Therefore, if an interpretation is needed, SCOTUS will follow the path of least trouble (i.e. avoid riots and confirm what 53% of voters wanted).
180 posted on 11/21/2008 1:08:12 PM PST by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-299 next last

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.

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