Posted on 10/15/2010 6:12:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A team of U.S. attorneys based in California has argued to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that there essentially is nothing the American public can do to determine if, in fact, Barack Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the Oval Office, and if they are injured, at least they are all injured alike.
The arguments were presented in a brief submitted by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute in defense of a lawsuit that was brought by a long list of plaintiffs including a presidential candidate, members of the military, members of the state legislature and others against Obama.
The plaintiffs had asked the appeals court to reopen the arguments because the district court's ruling, left standing, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority."
That earlier brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Here’s post number 3 on Tiger Eye’s 4/5ths Compromise? analogy.
Tiger’s Eye posts:
“It was you who tried to turn an analogy into the substance of the conversation. Don’t get your panties in a wad trying to pretzel your way out of that.
That makes two posts that you have abandoned the subject on to defend your straw man.”
I responded by pointing out that it was the 3/5ths Compromise, not 4/5ths and that it was fashioned by the Framers of the Constitution who Tiger’s Eye should not have accused of being against equal protection under the law.
That's three posts where you have ignored the subject to pursue your straw man. Since you can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag ... bye.
Sorry to get here late, but I correct this one every time I catch it. No hospital in Hawaii is permitted to tell us if they have a record of obama's birth or not. Hospitals may not disclose this information under the HIPAA law:
A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm.
No hospital is going to release this information and risk the fine and prison term.
Deal with it.
The judge appears to have granted some 24 requests to file amicus briefs. How many such requests has he denied? Apparently, zero.
Oh is that right?? He could have easily denied them but he did not.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
The problem with your interpretation of HIPAA is that it does allow for directory types of disclosures, and no one is going to prosecute a hospital for confirming what is alleged to be public knowledge.
LLS
You misundersand the issue here.
The government argues that those "hand-picked employees in black robes" do not have final authority in this Constitutional matter, but rather have no authority in the matter. The basis of the government's argument, in this case, is that Obama's eligibility under the Constitution is a political matter falling under the purview of the Legislative and Executive branches of the government. They further argue that the Judicial branch would be interfering in the business and operation of the other two branches were it to hear and rule on this case. (i.e. political question doctrine) Thus the article's headline.
Having those "hand-picked employees in black robes" interpret the Constitution is exactly what the plaintiffs' attorneys argue should occur in this case.
60% now agree with us, and we are gaining ground ...
Jake Tapper Asks Axelrod About Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605672/posts
[The weirdest question ever getting traction.]
Video: Laura Ingraham; Obama, It Is Time To Release Your Records
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2607196/posts
Birtherism: When no evidence will do in the case of Obama [hurl-alert]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2605265/posts
[We’re getting under their skin.]
Wanna bet on that there Sparky?
Best I can tell, Jamese777 is the most effective debator the certifigate critics have. But defending Obama’s secrecy is impossible. The main defense seems to be the legal justifications and procedural questions [why aren’t plaintiffs doing this or that?] rather than a search for truth.
I agree that we don’t want a judiciary with the power to disqualify candidates and/or incumbents. But there’s a new wrinkle in this coverup:
Why Pelosi Signed Two Certificates of Nomination
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2585683/posts
Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obamas eligibility?
Did Pelosi falsely sign Hawaii’s certification? That is an entirely different matter legally, I would think [although I’m no lawyer].
Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots). The Hawaiian DNC state party left out for Obama's certification that he is qualified under the US Constitutional, which is highlighted in the letter below.
Here is the Hawaiian DNC certification for Obama, which is missing the qualification under the US Constitution and for the state of Hawaii.
John Kerry's 2004 Hawaiian party DNC Certification. Notice that Kerry is qualified under the US Constitutional and for the state of Hawaii.
Al Gore's 2000 Hawaiian DNC party certification. You will also notice that he fully complies with Hawaiian Revised Statutes 11-113.
Enter Nancy Pelosi signed statement... because Hawaii did not fully certify Barack Hussein Obama. Pelosi signs the statement to fulfill the required Hawaiian law under Revised Statutes 11-113.
Thank you, FRiend. Will link to your detailed post. FRegards ....
No problem. Just countering the BS responses. :-)
That says a lot about the weakness of their position.
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.