Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
Nobody is disputing that they are different documents.
"...one is the actual birth certificate, the other is a short form abstract not necessarily based on the original source document, considering amendments that could be made to the original. The short form does NOT verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate and does not contain the exact details of the birth which can be corroborated. They do not carry the same legal weight and the short form IS NOT a birth certificate. It is an ABSTRACT in lieu of the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, per the law."
No. It is legal, prima facie proof of the facts on it. It does carry full legal weight. From the front of the certificate, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
"For example, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands requires the original long form birth certificate to prove Hawaiian status:"
Already discussed and debunked. The "status" in question isn't identity or being born in Hawaiian. It is having a certain degree of native Hawaiian blood. It's not that won't take the birth certificate, it's that proof of ancestry is ALSO required FOR THIS PROGRAM. It is not a comment on the legal validity of birth certificates.
"The US Passport Office does not accept some short form abstracts, to prove citizenship:"
But this isn't one of those forms.
"Further, the State of Hawaii allows/allowed for out of state births to be registered in Hawaii up to one year after the birth, which would call into question the credibility of the original birth certificate. Obama's sister was born in Indonesia but has a Hawaiian birth certificate."
Also previously discussed by others. If true, and if it applied to Obama's circumstances, things that aren't given, who says it is going to lie? You mean "generally popular liberal opinion"..funny how liberals care about the law when it comes to interrogation but want to use "generally popular opinion" to solve a constitutional issue.
barry:
Are you a natural-born citizen, as constitutionally prescribed in Article II, Section 1 and Amendment XX, Section 3, for the office of president?
When the question of citizenship came up a year ago, I presumed that this issue was a “straw man” — that your strategy was to send some adversaries on a rabbit trail to nowhere, only to release your official birth certificate just prior to the election. But you didn’t do that.
I believe that you were born in Honolulu, but I have been to the hospital where you were, ostensibly, born, and they could not produce any birth records or tell me who the attending OB might have been. Of course, 1961 is many years past.
Hawaii has sealed your on-file birth records, making them unavailable for verification. You refuse to request that the documents in question be made available for examination by dispassionate analysts.
To obtain a driver’s license, one has to provide some proof of citizenship — so why did you not comply as a presidential candidate? Surely you can influence the state of Hawaii to release your original birth certificate for public inspection, so this lingering question can be put to rest before your inauguration.
We know that you hold constitutional rule of law in contempt, but in the unlikely event that it is revealed sometime after your inauguration that you are not a natural-born citizen, we would be faced with a serious constitutional crisis. When do you plan to release your original birth certificate?
Poor Barry, the 20th and on for the next 4 years is going to be one long “Lets Kill the Haoles Day”
He knows what that meant.
You said — “And we see how sincere the trolls are:”
Well, when someone doesn’t agree with you on the matter, it seems that they are always trolls. That’s the problem you continually have. Let’s look at that and see what was said about it.
A poster on the thread said — “SCTUS has actually done something. They have sent the Berg case back to the lower court.”
And the answer came back from another person — “They were asked NOT to do that. They were asked to take the case from the lower court. They said no.”
—
Now, *that* kind of thinking is exhibited quite a bit on this issue. A defeated case or a setback on an issue (which *by the way* Berg himself calls it a setback for his case) — is “spun” to be a “success”.
That’s *exactly like* what people heard with “Baghdad Bob”. He would be standing there with the TV camera on him, telling about the success they were having, right when the pictures behind him showed them getting slaughtered.
There’s a *big denial of reality* here — when there *is* a setback — it’s “spun” into being a “success”. That’s exactly like “Baghdad Bob” was doing. This happens again and again on this issue. It’s like there’s no reality checks here, at all...
At least Berg can say it’s a setback — but — someone here can’t say it’s a setback — but it’s a “success”. It just doesn’t make any sense at all...
—
That’s why I think it’s a lot more rational to be working on this state legislation, like in Oklahoma, where they are going to get the law to say specific documents must be presented, in order to vet the Presidential Candidate. That’s a lot more real and it has a very good chance of getting through the legislature. It’s a lot better chance for people to work with their states than it is working all these cases that keep getting kicked out, denied, kicked down and so on (but nothing ever happens that ends up *actually* getting Obama out of office.
Can you imagine what will happen when Obama comes to the state of Oklahoma and they say he has to produce his birth certificate? Now, that’s something real...
Don’t be a bunch of “Baghdad Bobs”....
You said — “Post #929, if you think that by taking up half the page it makes your argument more credible, you are sorely mistaken. Nobody reads it. Now go bow to your idol.”
Actually, I prefer people like you not read it. It only causes trouble, anyway. So, you’re doing me a favor... :-)
Thanks....
—
But, there is a very peculiar trait that some posters here have. I don’t know if it’s related to the “name it and claim it” crowd or not. But, it has similar qualities. It’s like if you “think it” — you make it true in real life.
So, what you do, is you “think” and state that someone else has “Obama as their idol” — and voila — it becomes true. Just like magic... LOL...
Very peculiar....
—
I sure wish that some people would get a dose of “reality” and realize that everyone doesn’t think the way they think, and just because they disagree with them, that doesn’t make them on the opposite side of the political spectrum. It’s just too weird that some people (in the past) have complained about how other liberals won’t allow free discussion of something — and then — there those particular posters are — not wanting to allow free discussion themselves. I wonder if they see the irony of it?
The only solace I can find is that Obama will crash and burn with the rest of us. Though with his millions of dollars and messianic support in places where they have recently approved crucifixion (HAMAS in Gaza) as an accepted form of execution, perhaps, he may face just retribution.
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-not-iranistan-londonistan-in.html
The only solace I can find is that Obama will crash and burn with the rest of us. Though with his millions of dollars and messianic support in places where they have recently approved crucifixion (HAMAS in Gaza) as an accepted form of execution, perhaps, he may face just retribution.
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-not-iranistan-londonistan-in.html
Britain either needs to hand out the white flags or give their police some strong equipment to fight back with! Billy sticks just won't do it.
How about machine guns with rubber bullets to begin with, that's gotta smart!!
Note; I have not read through this huge thread, lol.
Thanks for the ping!
The Constitution doesn’t require a presidential candidate produce a birth certificate for public approval - read it, the requirement just isn’t there.
*** Just like there’s no requirement for an army general to prove he’s an army general when he tells you that you have to put up his friends for a year rent free? The requirement against that bit of bullstuff is the 3rd amendment, but you won’t find case laws or procedures built up around it because that problem hasn’t reared forth in our constitutional history. That does not mean the constitutional requirement isn’t there. For him to say, “well, where’s the written law that prevents me from doing this” is disingenuous. And it is just as disingenuous for CoLB trolls to demand that such a law be present for the same kind of untested constitutional area. The written law is the very first set of laws: the constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Your requirement that there be some kind of procedure or statute in place is a way of putting such procedures in priority over the constitution and it is a logical fallacy.
Further, I don’t recall any presidential candidate ever being required to prove his citizenship
***Because no one has tried to game the system until now. You may be old, but you ain’t that old. The constitution predates you.
(McCain volunteered his and Obama did too, just not the long version), and I’m OLD.
The Constitution does require the president to be a natural born citizen, however it doesn’t not suggest nor require any action on the part of the candidate to prove his or her status.
It's not quite that simple but I'm not even going to get into it. Turn-around is fair play. After the way you and your friends have behaved I have every right to make fun of any ridiculous statement I see, and that would still be more civil than you are in nearly every post.
“God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis.” - Baghdad Bob
Bwahahahahaha, whiner.
The GOP SHOULD have nominated a real conservative for president.
***And for me to say that, due to some unconstitutional cheating trick that it didn’t happen but we all have to live with this trick for the rest of our lives as republicans is a logical fallacy. Another fallacy is to say that, because I know the GOP will never fix this problem in the future, we all have to BOHICA — the argument from silence. Those are the kinds of arguments we’re seeing from trolls. Logical fallacies.
“We have them surrounded in their tanks” - Baghdad Bob
A squad of sharpshooters with Ruger 1022’s with suppressors, at about one-hundred yards in an armored vehicle. Drop a few of the moose limb scum with head shots.
The Constitution does require the president to be a natural born citizen, however it doesn’t not suggest nor require any action on the part of the candidate to prove his or her status.
***Sure it does. It requires him to qualify, and that means to show evidence. The burden of proof is on the candidate, not on the people. That’s like saying about the 3rd amendment when there’s an army general taking over your home, “Well, the constitution requires that I don’t do this, but it doesn’t specify exactly what I cannot do so the burden of proof is on you, the homeowner, to prove that what I’m doing is wrong.”
Neither did I - Hi, poot ... Gonz ...
Just moving from warm-Florida to cold is a bitch!
WHO TURNED DOWN THE DAMNED THERMOSTAT?
That plane landing in the Hudson River was a Miracle ... G_d Bless everyone ................. FRegards, Gentile though I am ...
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.