Supreme Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument

Associated Press ^ | June 11, 2012

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.

[DustyMoment]

Your comments are thorough and greatly appreciated. In particular, I liked your last paragraph, but I will pick one nit. You stated "In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress."

It is clearly not just the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 that has been ignored by Congress, it is the entire Constitution that has not only been ignored by the Congress, but also by the Executive and Judicial branches, as well. In fact, "ignore" doesn't really describe what they have done to that cherished document - trampled and shredded describe it better.

The Constitution is a gift we received from the men who founded this country and who gave virtually everything they had, including their lives, to see it come to life. 200+ years later, we have become so complacent and so cowed by the government, that we are willing to do nothing while the Constitution gasps its last gasp.

The Foumders must all be spinning in their graves wondering "why did we bother?"

[BuckeyeTexan]

He's President, qualified or not, removable only via impeachment.

Technically, his right to hold the office of POTUS could be overturned by a writ of quo warranto, but that's not going to happen. And if it did, Obama would not leave office. He'd challenge the court's ruling and stay in office while the lawsuit progressed through the system.

[Jacquerie]

Technically, maybe only a State has standing in this matter.

Ding,ding,ding! We have a winner.

I oppose judicial interference with the Presidential election process. Nothing is more political than elections, and as per Article II Section I and the Twelfth Amendment, the duty to give us a President resides with State legislatures and Congress.

Article II, Section 1: Each state shall appoint, in such a Manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .

Federal courts can no more legitimately interfere with the vote of State electors than it can interfere with the President’s power to nominate ambassadors. Both acts are non-justiciable. To do so would be a gross, impeachable violation of the Constitution. Unfortunately, all liberals and too many Freepers have fallen into a rat trap concocted these past 80 years that any dispute must be settled by a branch of government unaccountable to the people. It simply isn’t true and Scotus cannot legitimately “fill in” when some people become disgusted with the other branches.

But unlike the President, the Constitution is silent as to ambassador qualifications. So who or what body is responsible for keeping a Kenyan, or any clearly foreign born and positively unqualified individual out of the White House?

The responsibility can only be with the parties charged with giving us a President, State Legislatures which are responsible for the appointment of electors, the electors themselves and perhaps the Senate which counts the votes. That is why it was not unimportant for the Senate in 2008 to find that McCain met the Constitutional requirements. Our Senate must ultimately count the electoral votes and that Senate decided McCain was qualified. Very simple, and no court can interfere with State electoral votes, nor the Senate in its duty to count the votes as directed by the Constitution.

The place to stop Constitutionally unqualified candidates is our State legislatures. These are the people our Constitution charged with exercising electoral judgment.

[RobbyS]

in 2000, the Florida legislature should have decided the matter. The problem was that it was controlled by Republicans, and Gore partisans would have screamed as much about that as they did about the Court’s decision. Push come to shove, Gore should have done what Nixon did in 1960, just accepted his loss. Convinced me forever that popular election is not the way to elect the President. Not unless they do it like the French and have the option of a do-over.

[Jacquerie]

Uh, after the statutory recount, the FL SecState sent the electoral vote results to Gov Jeb Bush. As per FL law, Bush signed the document and sent it to the Archivist of the United States. I think that must be done in December, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, there was no input from any court. The FL SecState and Governor obeyed the law.

There wasn't a thing any court could do about it. Oh, the gorebots and lefty moonbats screamed. Tough.

Our much maligned Framers set the system up perfectly.

No judge can legitimately determine who will or will not be on state ballots. That is a good thing

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't agree; I think the parties fielded candidates of questionable qualifications precisely to set precedent for nullifying the NBC clause, and therefore the rest of the Constitution; after all, if the people-as-a-whole do not demand that it be followed then they can literally get away with anything. Case-in-point: TSA screenings, any other place/circumstance and the actions would be considered sexual assault and molestation (and are certainly violative of the 4th Amendment), yet they can do it because only a small group of people so much as squawk. The Republican establishment got behind him in lockstep and agreed to disparage anyone who dared bring the topic up. Bottom line, not too many people care about the enforcement of rules (Laws) they don’t like anyways.

I think this theory is too conspiracy minded. McCain was not selected by a Cabal, he was simply the least worst candidate after Fred Thompson waited too long (and then didn't try very hard) to get into the contest. All the other choices were even more crappy than McCain. (In my Opinion.) Not a one of them had a better chance than did John McCain, and it was for that reason he won the primaries until he was the nominee.

We ended up with McCain as a result of bad luck mostly. If you disagree, tell me which of the following would have been a better choice than John McCain.

Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Alan Keyes, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. As far as I was concerned, it was Fred Thompson and the Seven Dwarves, with Grumpy being the least worst among the Dwarves.

I have yet to hear anyone tell me which of the candidates we had to chose from (other than Fred Thompson) would have been a better choice than John McCain. We just didn't have a very good pool of candidates.

[LucyT]

One quick photo, then the photographer was asked told to leave.

Unprecedented: never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled: an unprecedented event.

What was discussed during this unprecedented off-the-record, behind-closed-doors meeting with a president-elect before Inauguration Day, January 2008?

.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.

Check out article, then # 118.

Thanks, Candor7.

[GregNH]

What has haunted me since a case I can't remember but Zippo's lawyer stated "revealing the BC would be embarrassing to the Prez." That argument has died out but what if Zippo said in this secret meeting, "My real name is Barry Shabazz. My father is MX and my mother is...and I was adopted by the Dunhams so that is why I have this funky BC in HI...bla bla bla.? But because I was born in NY to citizen parents I am eligible. Because adoptions are confidential I do not wish this information become public.....

The other thing I remember him saying but, have never been able to find it since, is "We have the law on our side." When asked about his eligibility sometime in '08

[Candor7]

I remember that lawyers posturing on the BC as well.

[OneWingedShark]

We ended up with McCain as a result of bad luck mostly. If you disagree, tell me which of the following would have been a better choice than John McCain.
Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Alan Keyes, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. As far as I was concerned, it was Fred Thompson and the Seven Dwarves, with Grumpy being the least worst among the Dwarves.

Given that you've ruled out Thompson, I'd have to say that Keyes, Huckabee, and Paul were better choices than McCain, for different reasons though.
Remember that McCain pulled a dead-parrot of a campaign; anyone showing more spirit would have been a gain -- furthermore, McCain has a history of being compromised, um, I mean "compromising"...

• Keyes would have been an interesting choice on the "social" front, as it would be a direct slap in the face to the "R is for Racist" sort of meme that the media likes to play and would have thrown caltrops onto that aspect of Obama's campeign. Plus I like the idea of stripping my opposition of their weapons before they can use them: in this case the "race card." He seems a solid candidate.
• Huckabee, while more a statist WRT drugs, seems "alrightish" as a candidate; he certainly would have fought had he gotten the nomination instead of McCain.
• Ron Paul would have been a very interesting choice (and would have shown that there is a difference between Republican-party and Democrat-party), certainly in hindsight his fiscal positions would have been worlds better than those instituted by Obama. The thing I am most uneasy about is his position on letting States decide on the legality of abortion, I can however see that this route is likely the most realistic way of going about overturning Roe v. Wade (all a State would have to do is claim the USSC overstepped its bounds in the case, destroying the Citizens's due process in their legislative-bodies and, in effect, forcing them to violate the 14th and 5th amendments.); the stance on foreign policy people bring up is supposed to be mitigated by Congress's involvement in the cabinet confirmation; lastly the War on Drugs is wholly contra-constitutional so I support the stance that it should be ended. Again, solid candidate.

But, in the here and now we have (apparently)

Obama v. Romney
...which ammounts to no choice at all, really. They both ascribe to the same horrid policies, and neither is (IMO) an Natural Born Citizen.
(There is enough questionable material on Obama that non-doubt is simply unreasonable. Romney's father was born in Mexico and not a citizen at the time of Romney's birth, precluding Natural Born Citizenship.)

[RobbyS]

The Senate could have settled the matter and ended it, but no one was listening. The only real controversy had to with the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to override the actions of the Secretary and they had no leg to stand on.

[MurrietaMadman]

Soros could be considered a cabal unto himself but I doubt he’s the lone wolf evil genius sort.

From http://devvy.net/pdf/mar08/stop_mccain_030508.pdf

http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick47.htm

“The article, “Influence peddling claims dog
McCain, describes McCain’s criminal corruption
while on the Senate Commerce Committee for
which McCain should have been removed from
office and prosecuted. During the time this was
going on, McCain was receiving large contributions
to his Reform Institute from socialists George Soros
and Teresa Kerry.

“John McCain helped armed Kosovo Islamic
terrorists. In gratitude the Albanians collected one
million dollars for the McCain’s presidential
campaign”: February 13, 2008:

http://www.serbianna.com/news/2008/01329.shtml

“He did everything that we asked of him, including
arming the KLA”, said Albanian lobbyist Joe
DioGuardi. The Albanians collected one million
dollars for the presidential campaign of this senator...

It may be that someone on the list of names offered as choices had the same connections as McCain but there is no way I’d agree that McCain was only the result of bad luck.

Unless you mean the kind of bad luck one has in a rigged game.

[Fred Nerks]

Very interesting:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2894055/posts?page=132#132

[rodguy911]

If O’Kardashian were white he would be gone by now. This is all playing the race card for all its worth.

[Fred Nerks]

Obama’s Birth Certificate a “serious embarrassment” Source?
All the News that Fits ^ | 10/22/08 | Nancy

Posted on Thursday, 23 October 2008 8:11:53 AM by pissant

Barack Obama claims “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation” in the Berg case and has filed a request for dismissal and a protective order. Berg’s filing asks for copies of his birth certificate, citizenship records, passport and travel records, and other documentation proving citizenship in the U.S. as well as other countries.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2112521/posts?page=57

Warning: The Justia site froze my comp.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/24/

[Fantasywriter]

Greg, a bona fide moonbat Obot troll and I once had a discussion on the Lakin case and the use of the term “embarrassment”. I don’t know if you can trust an Obot, but fwiw, here is what he wrote to me:

‘I don’t know if you actually read what Judge Lind wrote but here’s the exact quote in context. Judge Lind was discussing the legal concept of “political question” which involves whether a court has the license to rule on an political issue or not. She was NOT discussing any “embarrassment” to Barack Obama.

She said: “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

Her statement had absolutely NOTHING to do with embarrassing Obama. She is talking about various branches of the government stepping on each other’s toes and overstepping their jurisdictions in issuing rulings on questions that are solely political.

Judge Lind was using the word “embarrasment” in a LEGAL context. The following definition is best applied:
“embarrassment” - extreme excess; “an embarrassment of riches”
overplus, plethora, superfluity
excessiveness, inordinateness, excess - immoderation as a consequence of going beyond sufficient or permitted limits
redundance, redundancy - the attribute of being superfluous and unneeded; “the use of industrial robots created redundancy among workers”’

[Me again] Take it fwiw. My only inclination to believe, in this one case, an actual Obot troll [since zotted] is that he seems to cite the judge’s quote correctly. I know many sites quoted her differently, but there was never a link to the actual testimony. The above doesn’t have a link either, but I investigated it at the time and found the quote to be accurate. Again, fwiw.

[thecodont]

LucyT,

Thanks for the ping and the picture.

Most of the Justices look strained and embarrassed.

An analysis of the photo (note: not all Justices are present in the picture)

Left to right:

1. BO
2. Chief Justice Roberts
3. Justice Stevens
4. Justice Thomas
5. Justice Ginsburg
6. Justice Souter (now retired)
7. Biden

Not pictured
8. Justice Alito
9. Justice Scalia
10. Justice Breyer (now retired)
11. Justice Kennedy

Looking to the right: 1, 2, 3
Looking at the floor: 4, 5
Looking to the left: 6, 7
Leaning on chairs: BO, Biden

Hands or arms folded: all five visible Justices (including Thomas, whose shoulder position indicates hands folded in front of him), save for Stevens, who has his left hand in his pocket and is looking directly at Biden (note he is the ONLY Justice directly looking at someone).

Someone who is an expert at body language, please tell me what the “hidden hands” gesture means. “Our hands are tied”?

[Fantasywriter]

PS: Just to be clear. I think the judge in Lakin’s case was dead wrong, and that what was done to him [Lakin] is a stain, a towering injustice and a travesty. I hope he’s okay, but when everyone is protecting Obama and no one is protecting our brave, honorable troops the potential for harm is immense.

[22cal]

Breyer is not retired, Stevens is.

[LucyT]

You’re welcome, thecodont.

Wonder why TWO Supreme Court justices retired after January 2008.

.