Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.
Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“History” means, very simply, that the issue was just as alive before the election as it is after the election (with those who want to pursue it).
And thus, the voting public didn’t think it mattered to them (at least not the large majority that voted for Obama). That’s the “history” that I’m talking about. In other words, I’m saying that this is not an issue that only came about *after* the election. It was there, already, before the election.
And it’s *this kind of history* that tells me that no one is going to be “after Congress” to do something about Obama... (as you were saying is going to happen if Congress ignores this issue). Hey! A large majority of the voting public has *already* ignored the issue (according to your views on it). Therefore, where are the extra people going to come from who demand that Congress be “thrown out”?? They are not there...
Not moot. You put your words into the mouths of the Supreme Court. The cases are not dismissed.
Interestingly, you prove that we have obamanoid agitprops working Freerepublic, seeking to just get We The People to set aside our Constitution so the affirmative action fraud can become the leftist messiah you want. Congrats on your exposure, stinky.
You said — “Not moot. You put your words into the mouths of the Supreme Court. The cases are not dismissed.”
The words are not going into the Supreme Court’s mouth until after January 20th... LOL..
That’s when it becomes moot...
You said — “Interestingly, you prove that we have obamanoid agitprops working Freerepublic, seeking to just get We The People to set aside our Constitution so the affirmative action fraud can become the leftist messiah you want. Congrats on your exposure, stinky.”
I sure hope this is not an example of the reasoning acumen for most of Free Republic... LOL..
Reasoning? Bwahahahahaha, that from the stinky fool who places the burden of proof of Obama’s eligibility on We The People! LOL
The words are not going into the Supreme Court’s mouth until after January 20th... LOL..That’s when it becomes moot...
***Then you should stay moot until then, instead of arguing from silence, another of your classic fallacies. In this case the silence is the future, which no one knows. Ahhh, yes, I’m looking forward to at least one CertifiGate Troll keeping his mouth shut till then. In the meantime, since I have no confidence you’ll do such a thing, I’ll ping lj to add you to his CertifiGate Troll List.
You said — “Reasoning? Bwahahahahaha, that from the stinky fool who places the burden of proof of Obama’s eligibility on We The People! LOL”
And the best example of “reasoning ability” is when you see it confirmed in “reality”. Now, using that as an example, isn’t this exactly what has *happened* (in the real world) in regards to the burden of proof.
And therefore, that proves the need for state laws requiring the proper vetting of candidates for the votes of the public and the Electoral College, per the Constitution.
—
If you’re a scientist, you prove your “hypothesis” by seeing how it works in the “real world” (as opposed to your “theories”). Now, your “theory” is that the burden of proof is not on the public. However, when we “test the hypothesis” in the “real world” — we see, indeed, the burden of proof is on the public (in *practice* because that is *exactly* what has happened).
And that’s why the state laws are needed to shift that burden of proof.
“If the people of this country have questions, by the millions, they deserve an answer”
The problem is we, the millions, are directing our questions to the wrong venue. Our questions need to be directed to elected officials, those who will certify votes on January 8.
In the absence of millions of letters to members of Congress and in the absences of peaceful protest in D.C., in the millions, we will end up accepting this fraud. I do not see anybody having the slightest desire to organize, do you?
“If the people of this country have questions, by the millions, they deserve an answer”
The problem is we, the millions, are directing our questions to the wrong venue. Our questions need to be directed to elected officials, those who will certify votes on January 8.
In the absence of millions of letters to members of Congress and in the absences of peaceful protest in D.C., in the millions, we will end up accepting this fraud. I do not see anybody having the slightest desire to organize, do you?
Well, this is a discussion group. It doesn’t say this is the “borg collective”... LOL..
Other than that, I don’t know what the CertifiGate Troll List is..., I haven’t heard of it or seen it...
LoL! I’ll be back later to hammer your postings. So can I get a gig like yours? Obama has so much leftover campaign money to throw around.
“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...”
Well, I don’t really know why you have a problem. It’s pretty darn straight forward.
“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).”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. NATIVE citizenship. Come on, Obama knows this, you know this, it’s on his web site, he doesn’t deny it, and he’s only qualified as a native citizen if we take him at his word, because of the ambiguities involved with hawaii’s birth certificate madness. Native is not natural born. Technically speaking, he may very well be an illegal alien.
Why do you keep bringing up ‘majority rules’ points? Do you think it has any bearing on the issue or truth of the matter?
“So, at this point, and since Obama did put forth some documentation that he says shows that he’s a natural born citizen —”
Wrong again. Native, not natural.
“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.”
Wrong. Saying the same misrepresentations over and over and over again won’t make you right...
Anyways, I said there ‘would be if’... If Obama becomes president.
Yeah, he’s asserted it, and he knew he didn’t qualify beforehand... What does that tell you?
As I pointed out, post #3 said this decision was based on PR.
***Here is what is said in post #3, and it does NOT say the decision was BASED on PR.
I have a feeling that the SCOTUS is gunshy about getting involved in another election since the 2000 debacle. This is simply a P.R. move.
That’s the post you said did not make the claim that the Supreme Court was corrupt.
***Again I say it. So your continued arguing for that case is a jump in logic which is not supported by the evidence, and your reasoning is fallacious.
Are you seriously attempting to argue that saying a decision was a PR move is not the same as saying it was based on PR?
***Yes.
I’m tempted to think you’re a troll trying to make Freepers look stupid.
***I have the same temptation towards you, so I’m pinging lj to add you to the CertifiGate Troll List. Maybe if you stop using classic fallacies you’ll redeem yourself. Or maybe if you take a critical thinking class. But jumping straight to insults with such little logic behind your position reveals your troll-like weakness.
I knew my lack of confidence in you was well placed.
I see, so if We The People will just agree to set the Constitution aside for your messaih, you will help get new law written to make a better vetting process?
And this is the sort of ‘reasoning’ you think is corerect?... “Now..., how do you go from most of the voters approving of Obama and not thinking this issue is relevant ...” Bwahahahahaha. Go tell David Axelrod that sort of layering of lies might work with the obamanoid voters who don’t even know who Joe Biden is, but it doesn’t work at Freerepublic.
What’s the current status of the Keyes case?
I could not help thinking of my decades of experience under the "Fairness Doctrine."
Nobody.. noooooo-body would ever say/write in any media "Hawaii officials say they have a valid BC... they don’t say which country its from."
There was no modern talk radio, no Internet. The only place to get "the rest of the story" and spiked stories was in limited-circulation publications at magazine shops -- often hidden behind other magazines like "Kumquat Cultivation and Cuisine." :)
Note: This was after conservative newspapers started to disappear as TV news and weekly news magazines became the primary sources for the majority of Americans. Most cities had at least two newspapers at one time.
In fact when modern talk radio began about twenty years ago the most oft-heard caller comments (that I remember) were "I didn't know others knew that! I didn't know others thought as I do! You're saying the things I believe!"
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.