Posted on 12/19/2010 2:31:41 AM PST by RobinMasters
It just doesn't appear to be going away.
The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.
According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.
This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If Obama were somehow removed from office, all of the laws, acts, orders, etc signed by him would remain as law under the de facto officer doctrine.”
I think that would be heavily argued.
NObama was not eligible in the first place & HE knew it. I think that Howard Dean & others also knew it, but covered it up.
That makes NObama nothing more than a forger & fraud.
If someone improperly signs checks in my business, they are not legal & I can recover against those actions.
I think that since he was NEVER eligible in the first place, that each & every law,bill, treaty & Executive Order & appointment would be null & void. He had no legal authority to sign anything from the first minuts.
So true
Indeed the State-Run media needs to take a hit,oh gee gosh wonder why wikileaks can’t find any thing on the media birds of a feather I guess.
I'm pretty much there with you on this. Zero is a one-termer, if not because he has something that he is frantic to hide on his BC, then because his push for Big Socialism was just a little too fast for his handlers to be comfortable with, because it appeared to wake up more people than they were prepared to deal with.
People who think the supreme Court is going to do anything at all about this pretender's citizenship status are naive. Once you read enough supreme Court decisions, you will see that the court is ultimately at least as political an office as it is judicial. I've seen decisions where the court pretty much came right out and said that the reason they weren't deciding to strike down a particular law, was because the law in question was a part of the edifice supporting a large collections of laws of dubious constitutionality (at best). The war on drugs rests soundly on some of these decisions, that the court will not touch because to do so would be, in their words, "destabilizing".
Good on Georgia and Governor Deal, in that case, and likewise to any other governor, secretary of state, and/or state legislators who pursue similar items. May they prevail!
What's the downside?
Perfect single-sentence summary.
“You best hope is that fifty years from now someone will write a book...”
Yeah...titled “The Rise and Fall of the United States of America.” The last chapter will deal with the Obama presidency.
“You best hope is that fifty years from now someone will write a book...”
Yeah...titled “The Rise and Fall of the United States of America.” The last chapter will deal with the Obama presidency.
“To retroactively disqualify the Obama administration at this point in time might cause the U.S. government to collapse.”
“What’s the downside?”
For the people you are expecting to make the decision, loss of position, lifetime salary, and possibly physical safety.
Those voters who voted for Obama should get ready for the military draft because there is going to be a problem of recruitment and retention of military personal since DADT was repealed... Where’s the birth certificate !!!
He wasn't the first. Freeper, roaddog727, challenged Bowbama's eligibity a couple of years ago.
The vast majority of Democrats in Congress, if not all of them, have committed major malfeasance and endeavored to undermine the Constitution of the United States. No organizational charter can possibly define all remedies in case those charged with upholding the charter seek to undermine it. What needs to happen is for there to be a vast recognition that many of those in government have committed such a vast breach of public trust that the only way to restore legitimacy to government is to remove them from power.
Did that case deal with a situation in which the person's appointment or election was not only deficient, but was known to be so by the person in question?
To say that a person who has a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of his actions should in some cases be protected if such belief turns out to be incorrect is not inconsistent with the rule of law. Indeed, without such protections, people's refusal to do anything that would put them at legal risk would tend, in and of itself, to lead to anarchy. Nonetheless, there can be no legitimate basis for allowing people to benefit from actions they know, or should know, to be fraudulent.
Did that case deal with a situation in which the person’s appointment or election was not only deficient, but was known to be so by the person in question?
To say that a person who has a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of his actions should in some cases be protected if such belief turns out to be incorrect is not inconsistent with the rule of law. Indeed, without such protections, people’s refusal to do anything that would put them at legal risk would tend, in and of itself, to lead to anarchy. Nonetheless, there can be no legitimate basis for allowing people to benefit from actions they know, or should know, to be fraudulent.
Obama has operated for more than half a term when no state invalidated his name on their ballots, when Vice President Cheney counted and certified his Electoral College votes without objection from any of 535 members of Congress and after having been administered the Oath of Office by Chief Justice John Roberts. To date, no court has ruled him to be ineligible, no Grand Jury investigation has indicted him for a crime and no congressional investigations into his eligibility has been held.
All of the above is consistent with the legal definition in the de facto officer doctrine of “acting under the color of law.”
It exists to prevent unjust harm to those who act on a reasonable belief that the officer was acting legitimately. For example, if the government secures a contract to buy 50,000 widgets for a program which is subsequently found to be unconstitutional, the company that was contracted to produce the widgets isn't supposed to be left high and dry. On the other hand, if the owners of a company were to conspire with a corrupt official to secure a contract they knew to be illegitimate, such a contract would likely be voided.
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, actions contrary to it by definition cannot be legitimate. While it may not be possible to roll back all illegitimate actions, the difficulty of rolling back an action does not make it legitimate. The government may be bound to pay out an illegitimately-obtained contract which the other party negotiated in good faith, but that doesn't mean the government wouldn't then be obligated to protect the fiduciary interests of taxpayers by seeking redress from anyone who worked on the contract knowing it was illegitimate.
There are no titles of nobility allowed under the Constitution. Immunities which would apply to government personnel who undertake their legitimate duties cannot be legitimately applied to actions those personnel cannot reasonably believe to be legitimate.
It exists to prevent unjust harm to those who act on a reasonable belief that the officer was acting legitimately. For example, if the government secures a contract to buy 50,000 widgets for a program which is subsequently found to be unconstitutional, the company that was contracted to produce the widgets isn’t supposed to be left high and dry. On the other hand, if the owners of a company were to conspire with a corrupt official to secure a contract they knew to be illegitimate, such a contract would likely be voided.
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, actions contrary to it by definition cannot be legitimate. While it may not be possible to roll back all illegitimate actions, the difficulty of rolling back an action does not make it legitimate. The government may be bound to pay out an illegitimately-obtained contract which the other party negotiated in good faith, but that doesn’t mean the government wouldn’t then be obligated to protect the fiduciary interests of taxpayers by seeking redress from anyone who worked on the contract knowing it was illegitimate.
There are no titles of nobility allowed under the Constitution. Immunities which would apply to government personnel who undertake their legitimate duties cannot be legitimately applied to actions those personnel cannot reasonably believe to be legitimate.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett v Obama, October 29, 2009.
A different federal district court judge ruling on an Obama eligibility lawsuit said the following: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling primary campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost his opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support the contention that the President was not eligible for the office that he sought.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad, bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. (See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. 2009).(commemorating by a vote of 378-0, the 50th Anniversary of Hawai’i’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawai’i on August 4, 1961).”
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—
U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, Clay R. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it it ranks other sources of law in order of priority. Court rulings don't even make the ranking, but many judges seem to regard them with higher priority than the Constitution itself. Any court decision which cannot be justified without citing other precedent as legitimate cannot be legitimately justified under the Constitution.
That isn't to say precedent should never be used for anything. On issues which are truly ambiguous, it is right and proper for a court to use precedent in deciding among possible outcomes. Further, there may be times when a court should rule that earlier precedent was illegitimate, but earlier reliance upon it was reasonable. In such a situation, the immediate effect would be similar to that of having found the precedent legitimate, but the direction of future changes would be steered toward real legitimacy.
Unfortunately, I've never heard of a court actually doing that. Instead, courts bend over backward to pretend that all their earlier decisions were legitimate, no matter how ridiculous the contortions required.
The Constitution is actually pretty simple. The only thing that makes it "complicated" is pretending it says all the stuff it would have to say to justify the Court's behavior. Given a choice between (1) the Constitution is such an intricate body of law with countless twists and that somehow fit with earlier Court decisions, or (2) the Court sometimes rules contrary to the Constitution, and such rulings form no part of the Supreme Law of the Land, I find (2) far more plausible, even though judges, alas, still seem convinced of #1.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it it ranks other sources of law in order of priority. Court rulings don’t even make the ranking, but many judges seem to regard them with higher priority than the Constitution itself. Any court decision which cannot be justified without citing other precedent as legitimate cannot be legitimately justified under the Constitution.
That isn’t to say precedent should never be used for anything. On issues which are truly ambiguous, it is right and proper for a court to use precedent in deciding among possible outcomes. Further, there may be times when a court should rule that earlier precedent was illegitimate, but earlier reliance upon it was reasonable. In such a situation, the immediate effect would be similar to that of having found the precedent legitimate, but the direction of future changes would be steered toward real legitimacy.
Unfortunately, I’ve never heard of a court actually doing that. Instead, courts bend over backward to pretend that all their earlier decisions were legitimate, no matter how ridiculous the contortions required.
The Constitution is actually pretty simple. The only thing that makes it “complicated” is pretending it says all the stuff it would have to say to justify the Court’s behavior. Given a choice between (1) the Constitution is such an intricate body of law with countless twists and that somehow fit with earlier Court decisions, or (2) the Court sometimes rules contrary to the Constitution, and such rulings form no part of the Supreme Law of the Land, I find (2) far more plausible, even though judges, alas, still seem convinced of #1.
Statutory law, administrative law (regulations) and case law (Judicial Law) fill in the blanks where the Constitution is not specific or definitive on an issue. That’s why we have a US Code of Laws and why precedent is often utilized in deciding cases.
Courts go against precedent often. That’s how new precedents are established. At the Supreme Court, any time there is a divergence of opinion on an appeal, that means the Justices are of different minds on what precedent means as applied to any particular issue. Most decisions at the Supreme Court are not unanimous meaning that there are usually various interpretations of what the law is supposed to be.
In the specific instance of Barack Obama, only one court has made a definitive ruling on his eligibility status: The Indiana Court of Appeals. They ruled in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana. Mitch Daniels that: “based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v]Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the birthplace of their parents.”—
Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009
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.