Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
The cases are still on the dockets and it appears they will take these cases some time in the future. If the Supreme Court finds Obama in violation of the U.S. Constitution then the issue is squarely burdened upon Congress. Ok, let the Dems in Congress take that point of view. LoL! Many of them will be planning an early retirement.
My understanding is that whatever those judges do they’re not held legally accountable .... it’s sorta like “Oh well” and then move on ....
SCOTUS ruled in favor of Gitmo terrorists in a case the other day. I guess terrorists have more Constitutional rights than American citizens. I expected more from Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts but unless they have to wait for the pot smokers to get sworn in before they act then SCOTUS and teh Constitution are useless anymore.
No, if he becomes president it will show a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution, as they have sworn to do.
Gee, Kezmo, why did you not quote the entirety of post #3? The part that claims “This is simply a P.R. move” by the Supreme Court. If you don’t think that arguing that the Supreme Court bases its decisions on P.R. is the same as arguing that it is corrupt, you have no place questioning anyone else’s understanding of logic.
***It is not the same at all. It is a jump in logic that is not supported. I’ve done PR work, and none of it was corrupt. PR does not equal corruption. To use your wording, If you think that arguing that the Supreme Court bases its decisions on P.R. is the same as arguing that it is corrupt, you have no place questioning anyone else’s understanding of logic.
You’ve also ignored the point made that earlier threads
***You pointed out to posts on this thread. How did I ignore it? You’ve ignored a TON of evidence made on earlier threads. Here’s a starter, see ya next year:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/certifigate/index
have had comments claiming that the Supreme Court is corrupt on this topic.
***I’m on the lineage for post #3 and I brought your attention to that. Your point does not apply to the lineage you’re posting on. It’s completely invalid.
So your denial of “lineage” regarding the original post is simply wrong. But thanks for playing.
***I love to play. When you’re done reading all those threads you’ve obligated yourself to catch up on, feel free to ping me. Only one other FReeper seems to be caught up on even the one monster thread, Chief Engineer. You might be able to ask him a couple o’ questions if you need help. I can easily foresee that you WILL need help.
That’s why Congress will not be forced into action.
That's for the courts to decide if and when they take up the suits. The issue is not resolved, and the burden of proof is for Obama to prove he is a natural born citizen.
Fine. Let the Dem Congress do nothing about it and we will see them get routed that would rival their beating they got 1994.
You said — “Fine. Let the Dem Congress do nothing about it and we will see them get routed that would rival their beating they got 1994.”
Well..., you’re missing the “history” of this problem that has been brought up about Obama not being qualified. The *history* is that the issue has been on the table for a long while. People have already had the opportunity and time to consider it all they want to (*if* they really want to).
Now, keeping that in mind, that there is history for this issue from before the election — it would seem that the election has already proven that the majority of the voters are not demanding this issue be “resolved” the way people here are demanding. In fact, the majority of the users are quite satisfied with Obama, just the way it is. He was voted in by a sizeable majority of the voting public — larger than Bush or Clinton, in the past. That’s significant.
Now..., how do you go from most of the voters approving of Obama and not thinking this issue is relevant — to — Congress getting “routed” for not addressing this issue... It simply does not make any sense from the vote of the last election.
Then from SCOTUS’ viewpoint, the logical source to vet each presidential candidate would be the Federal Elections Commission, right? What would be the pros & cons of having FEC do the vetting of candidates?
We need to send them cases weekly from every state. We need to hire a good Constitutional attorney to coordinate the right timing. Send them one or two a week.
It is not just O it is who is behind him, energy countries, large hedge fund managers, islamic countries like Indonesia to name one and the endless unanswered questions and corruption.
And the EC votes are not offically counted till the first week of January?
You said — “No, if he becomes president it will show a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution, as they have sworn to do.”
I simply do not see the “mechanism” there for the requirement of proof that someone qualifies under the Constitution. It only says that one be qualified...
NOW..., going further, one could very easily say that even without the *requirement of proof* — that Obama did put forth enough evidence of his natural born status to satisfy the majority of the voting public. In fact, they accepted it so well, that they put him in office by larger numbers than voted in Clinton or Bush (in any of their terms in office).
So, at this point, and since Obama did put forth some documentation that he says shows that he’s a natural born citizen — it turns out that the “burden of proof” is on the “naysayers” to show otherwise. That’s because there is *no requirement* for any more proof than what Obama has already done. And..., the majority of the voting public says that is okay (by them, that is...).
—
The reason why you say there is “a deficiency in those responsible for enforcing the constitution...” is because their hands are tied by the nature of the laws which do not require anything more from Obama. He has *already* asserted that he meets the qualifications and he has given preliminary proof of such. There are no laws that require anything more than that.
So, by all legal intents and purposes he *has met* the qualifications of the Constitution for qualification for the office of President of the United States.
Well, I can’t see any court deciding on an issue that is moot. They’ll dismiss those cases. I can’t see the Supreme Court deciding on an issue that has become moot, because Obama has already been sworn into office. That would be setting a precedent that the Supreme Court would not do...
You said — “Okay, asswipe, We The People do not have the burden of proof, it is the affirmative action fraud who has the burden of proof to be eligible for the job the liar is seeking. And you show your sycophancy with every effort to twist the truth into the lie you prefer be the governing notion. So, stop wiping your nasty obamanoid ass with my Constitution. Your little messiah has the burden of proof to show he is eligible and he has spend more than a million dollars trying top prevent having to prove his eligibility. Thus he (and asswipes like you) are seeking to void the Constitution in order that the affirmative action candidate be ushered into the highest seat of power. It is becoming quite obvious what your little cabal is trying to do ... ‘let this one pass into office and work to change/add the law for later use’. You bastards know well that once your marxist affrimative action fraud is seated, there will be no recourse since your democrats control the means to remove the fraud. So, stop wiping your nasty obamanoid ass with My Constitution.”
If this is an example of the “thinking processes” that goes into this “Obama case” — I can see why it’s going nowhere and why even the Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, many conservatives, etc. want nothing to do with it.
You’ve provided an excellent example of why y’all are failing... LOL..
History?
Like the way AP in this story lied by omitting the fact that Berg and Taitz cases are still active on the Supreme Court docket. A "history" presented by the Main Stream Media full of lies and distortions about this subject that would make the USSR press proud. Most Americans are in the dark about this issue.
tagline added
Actually, your logic is laugh out loud funny. Your
So, the logical conclusion to draw from your comments is that you are arguing it is not corrupt for the U.S. Supreme Court to base its decisions on P.R.
***Where did I say this, that they BASE their decisions on PR? I didn’t. That makes your “logical” conclusion another classic fallacy of straw argumentation. You really should take that critical thinking class, DOCTOR.
Justice Kennedy did not have Berg’s case. It was Lightfoot v. Bowen, case # 08A524 that Justice Kennedy denied. AP cannot even get that right.
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.