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 ...
And that is probably the toughest lesson we all have to learn from this state of affairs.
Those we have entrusted to hold our freedoms in place have failed us. I think it would be safe to say, that it is those very people who have done the most to destroy our freedoms.
The Representative class has gone from being simply derelict in their duties, to being avowed and knowing enemies of The People.
What's obvious to me, is that the people have allowed this state of affairs to worsen to this level, through their own misguided trust in those representatives and gov't agencies, but also because of their own dereliction of duty to themselves and their countrymen.
It appears to me that this country is headed for "change" of some sort. We are all going to be involved in it, whether we want to, or not. Every one of us is responsible for the condition of this nation (good and bad) through our action or inaction.
We can all wait for a seminal event to make a choice on what to do, but the fight has already begun. We're losing because too many of us don't see that we're under attack, and are not fighting back.
When that seminal, triggering event does come, we will all have a choice; to either become cause, or to remain effect (as we are now). Let us hope that by that time, we're still in a position to even make that choice.
Sorry Miss Penny, I have gone back to July to get a closer look and I did find this, but there is much more on the topic and the 3 separate pieces of proposed legislation that culminated in this resolution 511.
From this post:
..why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly insert the following Clause?”
10/14/2008 8:13:02 PM PDT · by ransomnote · 16 replies · 1,280+ views
texasdarlin.wordpress.com ^ | By Judah Benjamin,
“2d Session S. RES. 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.: In the Senate of the United States.” was Sponsored by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Obama, Coburn, Clinton and Webb. Why? Why were Democratic Senators trying to pass a Resolution making Senator McCain undoubtedly Legally Eligible when this issue had already been cleared up in 2000 and again in 2004? And why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly insert the following Clause? “Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to...
Thanks for all of your efforts. This is enough to make even the most skeptical person pause and wonder what the democrats are up to in regards to Obama’s BC status. There is so much smoke here, you can’t see the fire!! I just hope it is resolved before he is sworn into office.
Agreed, see if you can locate the 3 attempts to modify the law and his exact wording.
I will try to do that later today and will ping you if I find it.
Thanks for the link. Listening to #6 of the Donofrio interviews right now. His case is the most promising and important imho because it will actually compel the justices to DEFINE/spell out ‘natural born citizen’ in our constitution. This needs to be done before Obama stacks the court with more leftists that believe that anyone..anywhere should be able to become POTUS!!
If the dems and Obama succeed in setting this precedent, then what is to stop future anchor babies of illegals from becoming President of the United States?
So in your mind, nothing is worth defending? Not even the document that gave Americans their freedom? Why is it that people have come to love communism instead of rightfully fearing it?
If this case was to come before the SCOTUS it would be a dispatched quickly in obama’s favor so as not to piss off the people or alter the election.
The majority of americans don't want to be bother with Constitutional “mombo-jombo”, they just want their big screen TV's, 30 packs of beer, big comfy chair/couch, and free medical care (or so they think).
Apathy is the key word here, people just don't give a you-know-what! They want obama, so they are going to get him ... period. And no Constitutional prohibition is going to stop them from getting what they want ... which is communism, a command economy, and a dictator (although they don't know it yet).
“Why don’t you help them by sending them mail reminding them that we know what their duty is, no matter how unpopular.”
Do you really think they care what you or I think? Do you really think they even read (their staffers that is) letters sent to them by the great unwashed?
Come on! The only time politicians and judges care what people think of is on election day. After that, they do what they please. They do what is in THEIR best self interest.
We can impeach them it is within our power. So, why should they ignore us? I wonder why so many people on this forum are embracing defeat and forgoing their duty to defend the US Constitution, and make sure it is upheld?
I find it highly insulting that if my wife and I were stationed overseas that our children born there would not have the same status as I. That would be a sh*tty thing to do to the children of the men and women that defend our freedoms. That would not be a Constitution worth defending.
There is a clause for military persons stationed overseas. Whether born by air, sea, or land your citizenship would prevail and your child would be considered natural born. The person I was referring to was not military (I don’t believe) so although their citizenship would lay claim to the child, she would be considered a citizen and not a natural born.
I may be incorrect, but I do believe that it only carries weight if you are military! You would be protected since you are fighting for our country. I didn’t mean to offend you at all!
Correct, and IIRC, this principle is reflected in US law.
If a person had a father who was not a U.S. Citizen they would not be considered a natural born U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama would not be a natural born citizen.
That may be correct under general common law, but common law can be modified by statute. I doubt American law still reflects this common-law principle.
I assume at least one of you was a US citizen? If so, she is a natural-born citizen of the US. I'm actually surprised she is considered a Canadian citizen, AFAIK, Canada does not grant citizenship based solely on birth in that country, but I could be wrong. I doubt she had to even pick one citizenship, as dual citizenship is legal under US law.
bttt
That's an urban myth. A child born to American citizens overseas is an American citizen from birth and qualifies for the Presidency.
There are only two classes of American citizen- natural-born and naturalized. If you are not a naturalized citizen, then you are natural-born. There is no third category of "citizen from birth, but not natural-born."
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.