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 ...
Ignore comes from the same root word as ignorant and ignoramus.
If the ignoramus, is ignorant, ignore.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about vetting being the responsibility of the Secretaries of State of the several states either. It just lays down a requirement.Which is not surprising since under the original scheme, the states had nothing to do with the actual candidates, they only selected the electors, who then voted for whichever candidate they chose, so why would the states have anything to do with determining which canidates could run? The states roll is limited to certifying the votes of its electors.
The Constitution does say in Article III:
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This is certainly a Case, in Law, arising under this Constitution. It's also a Controversy to which the United States is a party. Thus under the Constitution, the Judiciary of the United States, has jurisdiction.
IOW, This would not be "Judicial Activision", it would be the Court enforcing existing law, in this case, the highest law.
lj and I had gotten a start on an “asked & answered” page but we never followed through with it. I didn’t have the time and there’s the distinct possibility that all that work will be yanked by the mods. Besides, it’s too late. There’s only a few days left.
If the moderator are not going to stop it, it is up to us to moditor our own behavior and get a grip.
***I have a grip. These disruptors are here for an ulterior motive and I’m calling them on it.
mlo could have put a stop to all of my posting on certifigate if he’d just debate me over the legitimacy of the issue. No dice.
Mods could just remove the keyword abuse and obvious new date signup trolls. No dice.
Feel free to post a definition of troll or find it on FR. I’ve offered to do that as well, in conjunction with one or two of them in the distinct notion that if we could come to terms on the meaning, it would have some unbiased weight. Of course, the only real meaning would be the one committed to by the mods.
I see plenty of comments I don’t agree with on these CoLB threads. Not everyone who disagrees makes it to trollhood.
we break up in teams....Some already have their material ready....See you in Am in FR mail.....Think about who knows the most about what. Ask for volunteers.
You keep saying he made a document available. He did no such thing, he emailed an image purporting to be of the short form birth certificate, aka the Certification of Live Birth. It's hardly the same thing. Those images showed no raised seal, even though other scanned images of the same type of document, from Hawaii, clearly show the seal, which is actually indented rather than raised when viewing the front of the document.
Only fact check purports to have seen the paper document, upon which the raised seal has magically appeared, (after people noted it's absence). They purported to have photographed the document, but the photos show very poor, maybe deliberately poor, composition, lighting, and so forth. And the seal, invisible before, now is highly visible, but still not very authentic looking.
You said (at the end) — “IOW, This would not be “Judicial Activision”, it would be the Court enforcing existing law, in this case, the highest law.”
It seems to me that the vetting process has always been through the individual states (at least from what I’ve seen in the elections that I’ve been involved in). There can be write-ins on the ballot, but also, the individual states have to print names on the ballots and they have requirements that they’ve specified (for example, you have to get paperwork in by a certain time or you’re not on the ballot). So, it only makes sense that it’s the individual state that has always had control over this (again, from all the elections that I’ve been involved in).
All the “qualifying” that I’ve ever seen, has always been done at the state level. So, why is this going to change all of a sudden and become something that the Supreme Court decides that they’re going to vet the candidate, instead of the states?
I mean, is the Supreme Court going to say to the various states, “You’ve been doing it all along, but now we’re taking over the process.” ??
I can’t see it happening — that the Supreme Court is going to step into the business of the states in this matter, which they’ve done exclusively, in the past. It would be like making a law where none existed before, by doing that.
Anyway..., that’s the way I see it. And soon, I think we’ll see — by the results of the cases — whether the Supreme Court sees it the same way I’m talking about — or not. But, it appears the time is very quickly running out for that.
Also, from the way I see it, the date of January 20th is a “magic date” (so to speak) after which one can only see Congress taking any action to remove a President (if they so desired). Now, I’ve actually seen that someone posted that some sheriff (or some law enforcement) could walk into the Oval Office (or the White House) and escort the President out of there and evict him — but that really does sound crazy... :-) It’s when it starts getting down to the level where someone is going to escort the President out of the White House that I know someone has gone off on the deep end...
I don’t think it’s too late, because even if the thug manages to make it through and is sworn in, those fighting for the truth are not going to give up - suits will still be worked on and heard. As you have noted rightly, we can’t see the future and when and what the outcome will be.
I can look for the list of Questions and I am sure if it is passed around, knowledgeable freepers can fine tune it plus put together answers. I think it is a very good way to use energies, help the lurkers or people who are just getting up to speed learn, and deal with the agitprop without stepping in icky stuff.
My brain isn’t that great right now because I’m just starting to recuperate and only can use one arm but I will do what I can - think about it!
;-)
Even if the law was not passed until 1982, and I'm not sure that the 1982 at the bottom of that section indicates that the law was first passed in 1982, or just updated in some way in that year, it clearly applies to births occurring well before 1982, and even before 1959, when the Territory of Hawaii became the state of Hawaii.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Why bother to mention births outside the Territory if the law did not cover births prior to 1982?
Well, if you think it’s for lack of courage that the Supreme Court doesn’t act the way you think it should, then you’re missing the bigger picture about how they’re not going to create a law where none exists in the first place,
***That’s freepin’ easy. Their job is to uphold the constitution, which states that the an ineligible candidate can’t hold the job. Also there’s that pesky 20th amendment and various others spots.
in terms of how one is to specifically vet a candidate (and not merely what the Constitutional qualifications are).
***You’re the one missing the big picture. The constitution is the framework, the laws are hung on the framework. If there’s no law in place, that doesn’t mean the constitution isn’t there. Geez, how difficult is it to see that?
That’s at the core of the whole issue. And that’s also a conservative principle in that a conservative doesn’t want the Supreme Court to create some kind of legislative action, by means of a court decision, where that legislation didn’t exist in the first place.
***The conservative upholds the constitution. Legislation doesn’t exist around the 3rd amendment because there isn’t much need for it. Does that mean the 3rd amendment wouldn’t be enforced by SCOTUS? Trolls never seem to want to answer that question.
And I can’t discourage anyone from doing what they’re going to do in the first place.
***Non sequitur.
You seem to think that by some method or means that I can do that, which is making up situations which don’t exist.
***Another nonsequitur.
Now, if my rational for posting these things makes someone think and realize that what I’m saying is true — then that’s their own decision and thinking at coming to this point.
***I understand that rationale, but your inability to stay away from logical fallacies, your constant dog-returning-to-its-vomit trolling idiocies, your overlooking simple questions like the 3rd amendment, etc. etc. means that your rationale is seriously hampered and the only thing you’ll likely accomplish is that someone might ask you why you believe in alien abductions. If your rationale were on target with what you say, you’d focus on your precious Oklahoma legislation effort for 2012 and leave us alone.
It’s really up to everyone individually, anyway. I’m posting what I think, and what I say is going to happen and, as I’ve said, we’ll see (if it turns out to be true, which I think it will...).
***more nonsequitur, which probably results from you trying your darndest to avoid that logical fallacy of arguing from silence, the silence of the future. It’s okay to think something is gonna happen in the future, but it’s a fallacy to argue forwards from that as if it were a fact. That’s why you get caught in so much fallacious reasoning, you can’t see that your original starting point has always been a fallacy.
For someone who is in need of a critical thinking class, it would seem that you’ve gone overboard to try and discount these things I’ve said — when it *should be* (according to you) that it’s so obvious that I’m wrong in my thinking.
***Interesting, roundabout, nonsequiturish way of saying... well, something pretty stupid. It’s obvious to me, but it may not be obvious to lurkers. Lotsa lurkers might be inclined to think like you and are surprised to discover they’re using logical fallacies. A few of them are right now signing up for critical thinking classes around the nation. Thanks to you. So maybe something good did result from our exchange.
Your protests indicate something different than what you’re saying...
***Yours certainly do. Get to work on that Oklahoma thing and leave us alone.
And for sure, I don’t *know* the future,
***Well, it’s about freepin’ time you started there.
but I can sure make assessments according to how things normally work in the real world.
***You’re not very good at it. Making assessments like that is utterly dependent upon your critical thinking ability, which you lack. And as far as “how things normally work in the real world”, the lurkers will forgive me for not giving credence to someone who thinks alien abduction is a real phenomena.
That’s where it seems to “go wrong” with some posters here — in that they think that their *fervent desires* should dictate the “reality” of the situation.
***You say that over and over, but it’s still not true, you’re still projecting, embarrassed about that alien abduction thing I see.
On the other hand, I know what I would like — but sometimes reality decides against me. And that’s the way it is here, with Obama and this “qualifications issue”.
***You’re a real strong constitutionalist, we can all see that. /s, for those who live in Rio Linda.
But, one thing that I *do know* can very easily happen, politically, is that there can be legislation put through various states to properly vet the candidate.
***Dog.Vomit.Return. Go ahead, knock yourself out. Same arguments, over and over and over.
Now, in making an “assessment” of how well what I’m saying will work compared to how well what you’re saying will work
***You’re setting up a straw argument here, since I never said that. Yet you keep coming back to it... over and over and over... Have fun posting all this stuff at Daily Kos.
— I’ll put my bet and assessment on my methodology. And I’ll stand by it for the future, if someone wants to check on it
***You can’t even stand by it now, because you keep coming up with the same logical fallacies again & again. I don’t give a flying freep what you think is going to happen in the future, it’s more important why you’re here on these threads, spreading logical fallacies, trolling, generally throwing a wet blanket and trying to get constitutional conservatives to accept a fait accompli that hasn’t even accompli’d yet. You’re just a simple troll. You’re trying to set yourself up to gloat. That’s a real good constitutionalist, there. /s, again...
How do you know his PhD is phony if you don't know who he/she is?
I sent the list to you two.
And Buckhead’s analysis of forgery was no good because Buckhead isn’t his real name.
SPECIAL NOTICE - CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE - PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS - THE SHORT BIRTH ABSTRACT OF RECORDS ISSUED BY MANY COUNTIES AND BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES. DUE TO COMPUTER PROGRAMMING THE BIRTH ABSTRACTS SHOW THE COUNTY OF ISSUE AS THE PLACE OF BIRTH EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA. A BIRTH RECORD FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES MUST BE THE LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES.
That's about ballot access, not eligibilty to hold the office. The Constitution specifies what that is, no law is necessary.
The states do remain free to "vett" people who wish to have that ballot access, but you can hardly say the states have done much vetting, although I guess a few did throw off a guy who admitted to being born outside the county to citizens of the country of his birth. So yes, some vetting has occurred, but even those states did not require proof, they just used the persons own statements of his origins.
The problem with your argument about Obama not being qualified is that no one has shown that to be the case, and as I’ve said before — with a court, with any documents — and the Supreme Court isn’t going to act on something like that and be “cowboys” based on hunches and speculation from various people. And additionally, until someone produces documentation with lower courts, which will rule on it, the Supreme Court is not going to “cowboy” the process. From what I’ve seen, the Supreme Court is inclined to kick cases back down if they haven’t gone through the proper stages in the process of getting up to them in the first place. It hasn’t happen yet, in the past, it’s not happening at the present, and I don’t see it happening in the future (and that future is not too much longer with January 20th just around the corner).
And in terms of the Constitution being the framework, I’ve said all along that there is nothing that is being disputed with what the Constitution requires for the qualification for President of the United States. The problem is — rather — that Obama has qualified, per the vetting process that has always been done. So, there isn’t a “problem” in meeting those qualifications per the Constitution (again, according to how it’s always been vetted in the past). Obama has gone through the very same process that candidates have in the past — and has been determined to be qualified per the Constitution.
Now, if someone was able to produce some evidence in a court of law and have that case with that evidence, having been verified by a court already, be taken up to the Supreme Court, maybe at that point in time, the Court would *have something* they could act upon. Right now the Court has nothing in the way of verified court evidence that they can act on. And since Obama has been vetted and determined to be qualified per the Constitution (again, the same way everyone else has always been) — they’re just not going to do anything more.
For those who say that Obama has not been vetted as qualified under the Constitution, then I would say, why doesn’t the Supreme Court see it your way — thus far? That’s a strong indication that they don’t see it that way at all. In addition, neither does President George Bush see it that way, as he had Secretary of State Rice report to him the situation with Obama’s passport and Bush knows the details there. If there was any fraud going on there, it’s an easy matter for him to direct prosecution by the Justice Department and put a quick end to that one. He had that information as far back as last March. Since President George Bush has done nothing in the way of prosecuting Obama, we’ve also got the Executive Branch of the government agreeing that Obama is properly vetted, in addition to the Judicial Branch also saying so (by their actions).
You mentioned the 3rd Amendment — and one can say that this is one that gets no attention at all, if it ever did. I think it may have gotten attention in exactly two instances, in its history (I think one case got thrown out). On the other hand, the candidates for President of the United States have been vetted to be qualified (or not) under the Constitution every Presidential election and it hasn’t been a problem in the past, at least not recently. Obama has done the same thing as prior candidates and he’s gone through that very same vetting process which determined him to be qualified. It’s only a very small segment of people who think that Obama has to do more than other candidates have had to in the past to “prove” that he qualifies, when it has not been required of anyone to do any more than he has done presently.
It would be a different story *if* anyone, someone, anywhere, anytime — had an ounce of proof that went through a court of law that could be verified and then carried up in a case to the Supreme Court. But, sorry — nothing there...
And that’s what you’ve got — *absolutely nothing* — that any court can act upon, to prevent Obama from taking office. And soon, after January 20th, it’s only going to be Congress who can remove the President — unless someone comes up with that idea that I saw posted elsewhere — where a sheriff (or some law enforcement) walks into the White House and escorts Obama out of the White House, because he’s not qualified to be President... (now..., that’s a funny one... LOL...). It’s amazing what kinds of ideas pop into people’s heads when they really really want something to happen their way....
Does that mean Schwarzenegger won’t be able to run next time?
SPECIAL NOTICE - CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE - PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORNIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTO REPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS - THE SHORT BIRTH ABSTRACT OF RECORDS ISSUED BY MANY COUNTIES AND BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES. DUE TO COMPUTER PROGRAMMING THE BIRTH ABSTRACTS SHOW THE COUNTY OF ISSUE AS THE PLACE OF BIRTH EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA. A BIRTH RECORD FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES MUST BE THE LONG FORM PHOTO REPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES.
You said — “That’s about ballot access, not eligibilty to hold the office. The Constitution specifies what that is, no law is necessary.”
Yes, it’s about ballot access, too. But, I also think that the courts are going to say that they are also involved in vetting the candidate per the Constitutional requirements, too. Why would I say that? Well, if not — then it means that *no one* has ever been vetting the Presidential Candidates in all our prior elections, per the Constitutional requirements (if the states have not been doing it). That means we’ve simply forgotten to do it for over a hundred years or more, or we’ve simply ignored it for all that time.
I can’t say that a court would think that, so I would imagine they’ll say that it’s been taken care of at the same state level, all along.
—
And then you said — “The states do remain free to “vett” people who wish to have that ballot access, but you can hardly say the states have done much vetting, although I guess a few did throw off a guy who admitted to being born outside the county to citizens of the country of his birth. So yes, some vetting has occurred, but even those states did not require proof, they just used the persons own statements of his origins.”
I think the states have relied on the parties and then a signed statement from the candidates saying that they are qualified. I sorta think, also, that the courts are going to say that the political system, of the candidate having to face the voters and getting through the primaries, is also part of that vetting process (i.e., being vetted by the party politics and the voters). Now, all this is true — in the past many years and decades and century or more. It all has served that purpose (including the states) and it hasn’t been a problem, thus far — except for one Vice President and President who was not qualified under the Constitution, in the past. But, that was only one that I know about.
Aside from that one President who was not qualified, it’s worked very well in the past. It’s just now that some people are thinking that our normal process has not worked right. And if that process has not worked right to actually vet the candidate properly, then we’ll have to change the system to correct that. But, my estimation is that the courts are not going to step into that process right now, with Obama.
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.