Posted on 09/10/2009 4:54:47 AM PDT by kellynla
Americans’ who do not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen won a huge decision in California as a judge set three court dates, one of which will require the President to prove his citizenship.
The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in Southern California, it is the first time the merits of the President’s citizenship will be argued in open court.
The first obstacle the plaintiffs will have to overcome is an October 5 motion to dismiss as well as the arguments on the issue of discovery. From there the plaintiffs will have to navigate a pretrial hearing before Judge Carter will hear the case tentatively set for January 26, 2010.
According to Jeff Schwilk, who was in the courtroom, the judge was solid as a rock. “The audience of about 45 was nodding and giving thumbs up to each other on almost all of his decisions.”
“He (the judge) is determined to get Obama to prove he is eligible,” Schwilk explained. “Things are going to move very fast.”
However, Judge Carter hasn’t ruled on the discovery motion, which is the right to see the President’s still-concealed records. Judge Carter didn’t rule on the motion to dismiss either.
The next few weeks will tell if the California plaintiffs will actually be able to challenge President Obama in open court.
The lawsuit claims President Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia or Kenya. This would violate the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, it says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
The records put forth by the President show that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth took place in Hawaii.
“It’s pretty close to check mate, but of course the Obama team will try to come up with something to get their way,” Schwilk finished.
What about in Kenya? Or anywhere else that allowed polygamy at the time.
Stanley Ann's whereabouts from about mid January '61, maybe earlier, cannot be established, until she showed up in Seattle in late August. No marriage license or newspaper announcement of the marriage has been found, although their divorce papers said they were married on Maui in February of '61. Announcements of marriage licenses, in the paper probably would have been routine, with the information coming direct from the license bureau, just as they are today in Hawaii, except permission to release the information must now be given by the principals).
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
This choice was in part due to the fact most of the framers didn't want Alexander Hamilton to become President.
Got a case citation?
They lie about the future all the time, but about the past? I think that could be called "fraud" in most cases, especially when it involves eligibility for the office one was seeking.
I believe in the ever-hopeful possibility of radical discontinuities. 8~)
MSM? ::crickets::
++++++++++++++
Of course..idiots.
Judge: “President Obama, show the court proof you are eligible.”
++++++++++++++++
More like: Judge: “State of HI and Occidental College, show the court your records.”
I think this issue is moot. With a Supreme Court that’s unwilling to entertain the argument and a Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, there’s no way it will result in anything. Even if the President fails to provide proof, there’s nothing the judge can do to him because of executive privilege. If they could prove he’s not legal it would take an impeachment to remove him and that’s not going to happen.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Won’t it strain the POTUS credulity beyond belief? That can’t be bad. He will be an absolute lame duck.
Close. The 12th amendment says that if no one get a majority of the number of electors appointed, then the election goes to the House of Representatives, but says they must choose between the top three electoral vote getters. That would be McCain, McCain and McCain, if the Courts declared votes cast for Obama to be invalid. That would leave us with President McLame (for which I would bend down and kiss the earth), and Vice President Biden.
OTOH, they might declare that the electors pledged to Obama Biden were improperly appointed, in which case, your scenario would occur. And it would be McCain-Pallin, not McCain-Biden. That would be better. Just a bit. :)
I can understand why that picture would make one think of ‘Thriller’, but it came from the movie ‘THEY LIVE’.
Obama Sr. was not an American citizen and apparently had no intention of becoming one. If Sr. is obama's father, then obama lacks having to American citizens as parents.
Some have noted the age of obama's mother and the laws regarding conveying citizenship when obama was born and they have questioned whether or not she was legally able to convey her citizenship.
I'm back to where I started. I don't know where obama was born or anything about him since he has provided no paper trail for us to verify who or what he is. Why doesn't he do that? I would. It sounds like you would. Why doesn't obama?
obumpa
Assuming it did occur, the Senate has the power to do that under Article I, section 5 of the constitution. (Each House is the judge of elections to it and may expell or reject members). They could not order elections but the state's governor "shall issue" writs of election (per 17th amendment) when vacancies occur.
Unfortunately there are no provisions for new elections when the office of President (and even both President and VP at the same time) is vacant. Instead there is a line of succession, provided for by law as authorized by the Constitution. All the people on that line, except Pelosi and Byrd were appointed, (Gates, SecDef was reappointed), by Obama, and so their appointments would be invalid Pelosi may have been complicit in the fraud, Byrd is likely unable to exercise the duties of the office due to old age infirmities.
It could be a hell of a mess.
The pResident just renewed the EMERGENCY POWERS ACT that was initiated by President Bush right after the 9/11 disaster. I would bet that covered in that act is that the President cannot be impeached or removed while it is in effect.
I could be wrong.
Platoon was Hollywierd. For another nasty one, check out the battle of Ia Drang Valley (both LZ X-Ray and especially LZ Albany) the former was portrayed somewhat accurately in "We were Soliders Once and Young", but read the book, it has more about the Albany debacle. Plus the follow on "We Are Soliders Still" Both by Lt. General Hal Moore and Joe Galloway, Moore was LtCol and CO 1/7 Cav at X-Ray, Galloway was an imbedded reporter, and boy was he imbedded, even more than the movie indicates.
We have a FReeper who took part in that battle, ALOHA RONNIE. (He was at LZ Falcon where the artillery that was in direct support of the battle was located.)
It wasn't in the Constitution, but rather in an Act of Congress "An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization", which was indeed replaced by a 1795 act of the same title which dropped the words "natural born".
Yes they will. It's provided for in their law. From the Hawaii Office of Health Status Monitoring web site
A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:
...
a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
Remind myself
There was a hospital there before the one referred to was built.
McCain's mother maintains he was born on the naval station. So does the English Language Panamanian American, of August 31, 1936, which stated that "Lt. and Mrs. John S. McCain Jr. of the Submarine Base, are the parents of a son born Saturday afternoon at the Submarine Base hospital".
Further a reporter for the Washington Post, Michael Dobbs, says he was shown McCain's birth certificate and it shows his birth as being at the Coco Solo "family hospital."
He checked out the name of the doctor shown on the BC, and found that doctor was assigned to the Coco Solo hospital at that time, thus also showing that there *was* a hospital on the base then, just not the one authorized in 1941. I'll try to find the document showing that assignment. But right now, gotta go, or I'll get no supper.
Actually, the state of HI would have to produce the original document.
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.