Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders Obama to Provide Valid Birth Certificate by Dec. 1 (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders Obama to Provide Valid Birth Certificate by Dec. 1
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But then again, he probably thinks Obama is the anti-Christ, so maybe I'm taking too much for granted.

No, no, no.

Ron thinks Obama is going to be the American Hitler. He's only working for the Antichrist.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
The policy underlying the rule certainly isn't trivial, but in an individual case such as Obama's, there is simply no reason to see why his not being born in the USA is a detriment to his ability to be a good president. In a very real sense, in this specific instance, it is a trivial issue.

Sure, and what're a few warrantless wiretaps between friends? And, after all, the War on Drugs is much more important than the 4th Amendment, too. Given the many accusations that President Bush's Presidency was illegitimate (also bogus, from all that I've read) transparent legitimacy sounds like a worthwhile goal.
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Before taking a course of action, however legal, it behooves us to ask ourselves if the consequences are worth whatever benefit we get out of it.

It's like that whole stupid "14th Amendment isn't legitimate because it wasn't really passed by Ohio" fiasco; it would remain a bone of contention (and a much more legitimate one) that would cause some to believe that Mr. Obama's actions would not be the lawful actions of a legitimate U.S. President.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with stevearooni. If we ever elect a person who is not constitutionally qualified to be president, its a big deal. Fortunately, we haven't done that yet.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stevarooni, I'm curious: do you think the country would be better off if the election were reversed on this basis, or better off if the election were upheld?

To me it's a simple proposition. I don't have to make a legal conclusion about the constitution to determine what my answer to the question is.

To use a helpful example: on one hand, I am in favour of enforcing immigration laws and keeping out illegal immigrants, as a matter of policy. But if I'm a Mexican with a family who knows that he can feed his family and provide for them by illegally entering the United States, without really hurting anyone else, damned straight I'm going to do it. And I wouldn't even blame him for doing it, even if my sense of law and order forced me to conclude that he should be deported if caught.

Even if I acknowledge the fact that Obama should not be president if it turns out he was not born in the USA, I can still conclude that the USA would be better off with the election results being upheld, in spite of a technical non-compliance with the constitution.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice constitutional argument, Jason [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr, I want to agree with what you're saying, but we'd have to literally erase the knowledge from the earth to make it work, because people just can't live with the (hypothetical) fact that the president wasn't constitutionally elected.

If this was one guy happening upon the information by accident, you might be right that the moral choice would be to bury it, if he could do so with finality.

But when it's out in the public arena, it's too late. Collectively, we can't ignore it.

Luckily this is just a right-wing lottery ticket: no real chance to win, but people have delusions.

Or wait, would that make me WRLONG?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Stevarooni, I'm curious: do you think the country would be better off if the election were reversed on this basis, or better off if the election were upheld?

In the long run, I think that the country would be better off. It's bad enough when the conspiracy theorists are wrong and crazy. If this were true, then there many people were wrong at many different points (the media alone would deserve to be eviscerated; and the Democrat party would be ripping itself apart trying to find out who knew what, when), and that lack of concern about legal requirements would probably show up at other, far less "trivial" points in the future.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not a constitutional argument Ev, it's a pragmatic one. To use another example to illustrate my point: if you were a slave in the south, wouldn't you try to escape, no matter what the law said? Sure, if I was a judge sitting at the time, I might be forced to uphold the law in terms of slavery, but in private, why shouldn't I cheer for the slave who got away?

In this case, sure, legally I am forced to conclude that Obama cannot be president if he wasn't born in the USA. But that doesn't mean I can't also hold the opinion that the country would be better off with the election not being reversed, in spite of the technical non-compliance with the law.

What I can't figure out is why any rational person would want to pursue this?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the long run, I think that the country would be better off. It's bad enough when the conspiracy theorists are wrong and crazy. If this were true, then there many people were wrong at many different points (the media alone would deserve to be eviscerated; and the Democrat party would be ripping itself apart trying to find out who knew what, when), and that lack of concern about legal requirements would probably show up at other, far less "trivial" points in the future.
I suppose once the cat's out of the bag, the cat's out of the bag. But the cat isn't out of the bag. Nothing has been proven. Yet guys like Ron are just super-eager to keep digging until they find that glorious piece of evidence that's going to tear the country to shreds.

It's the fact that I think Ron et al. actually want it to be true that I find so disturbing.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, its not even that the cat isn't out of the bag. Its that its been proven the other way to everyone's satisfaction except extreme partisan idiots.

Sorry for misunderstanding your argument, jason.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
To use another example to illustrate my point: if you were a slave in the south, wouldn't you try to escape, no matter what the law said? Sure, if I was a judge sitting at the time, I might be forced to uphold the law in terms of slavery, but in private, why shouldn't I cheer for the slave who got away?

Of course several juries at the time used their ultimate power of nullification to judge that they deemed the law to be unjust, and found some escaped slaves (and their abettors) to be "not guilty".
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
What I can't figure out is why any rational person would want to pursue this?

If someone found evidence of this (way to late to pursue when they ought to have) and found that they were being actively dissuaded from revealing The Truth™, that alone would make me want to shout it from the rooftops. It's all total B.S., though, so that's a hypothetical reason I'd want to pursue such a matter.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If someone found evidence of this (way to late to pursue when they ought to have) and found that they were being actively dissuaded from revealing The Truth™, that alone would make me want to shout it from the rooftops.
Really? I'd first consider the consequences of doing so. While truth is usually a good thing, there are exceptions to every rule.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I uncovered evidence of a conspiracy to conceal such a fact, I'd want to shout it out too. The only way I can consider it the "right" choice to conceal this information is if there's no reason to suspect it's been covered up on purpose: then you might be able to believe that the campaign was run on good faith, and you wouldn't be participating in a monstrous pulling over the eyes of America wool.

(I'm experimenting with sentence structure there, sorry.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Even if I acknowledge the fact that Obama should not be president if it turns out he was not born in the USA, I can still conclude that the USA would be better off with the election results being upheld, in spite of a technical non-compliance with the constitution.

pst! there's actually a tried and tested US Supreme Court doctrine for this exact situation, for the precise reason you seem to be speaking from:

POLITICAL QUESTION.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:

Seriously, you made an accusation "I really think most of you wouldn't care [whether, having been elected, Obama could legally be considered ineligible for office]"

You've essentially accused "most of you" (most people making fun of Ron? Most Obama supporters?) of supporting illegal activity, specifically as it relates to selecting the person in charge of running the country. It's a pretty strong accusation. And you don't have the nads to back it up?

Actually, I expressed my opinion. If you read the other posts, you'll see my opinion well validated complete with how the spin will go. All you need are the "nads" to face the truth.

[ November 20, 2008, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the answer is "no, you can't back it up".

BTW, an opinion that speculates on motive is still, you know, speculating on motive. Just saying "that's my opinion" doesn't make breaking the rules automatically excusable.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the question of whether G2 has the nads to back something up is motive speculation [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope - doesn't require guessing at why, just guessing at whether [Razz]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It appears that Clarence Thomas has done what David Souter would not, which is forward a request to hear a challenge on presidential eligibility to the other justices. A discussion on whether to grant that cert petition is now scheduled for the court's conference on Dec. 5th according to the Worldnutdaily. This is not the suit by Phillip Berg, it is another suit filed by Leo Donofrio that challenges the eligibility of both Obama AND McCain to be on the ballot.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/11/justices_to_consider_cert_peti.php

The suit is kind of crazy - it is claiming not that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, but that he shouldn't eligable because his father was not a citizen.

[ November 21, 2008, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Political question.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
The suit is kind of crazy - it is claiming not that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, but that he shouldn't eligable because his father was not a citizen.

Here's the deal:
quote:
Originally posted by G2 on June 11, 2008:
Apparently the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986 (the time frame of Obama's birth) state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Obama's mother was 18 when Obama was born so she couldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16. That would mean Obama was not a US citizen at birth and either naturalized later or is not a US citizen now unless his father was already a US citizen.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 3789

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Apparently the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986 (the time frame of Obama's birth) state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Obama's mother was 18 when Obama was born so she couldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16. That would mean Obama was not a US citizen at birth and either naturalized later or is not a US citizen now unless his father was already a US citizen.[/qb]

Are those the requirements "in force" for all potential citizens, or only those not born in America?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(G2: in case you're wondering, you can find the answer in the 14th amendment.)
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, everyone who has weighed in on this issue. I think the link to a Fact Check article, supplied by The Drake, was the most persuasive. I will say that because of that article, I am 95% convinced that the story that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or David Souter, or whoever (as stated in hundreds of blogs) issued an order for Obama to provide a valid, long-form Birth Certificate by Dec. 1, is not true. So I would say it is probably not true.

Here again is the link The Drake provided:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Of course, the matter will be 100% cleared up on Dec. 2, since the alleged Dec. 1 deadline will have passed.

I do have some reasonable questions remaining.

(1) Why do Obama's relatives in Kenya claim he was born in their village?

(2) The Supreme Court, in rejecting Berg's suit, did so on the basis that he did not have the proper standing to bring such a suit to the Supreme Court--they did not, apparently, rule on the merits of the case. So what is the Supreme Court's actual response to the merits of the case, which is a matter of Constitutional law they have to be concerned with?

(3) Why is it claimed in many blogs that several "experts" have determined that the Obama document so far provided is a forgery?

We've got ten days to Dec. 1. If this is a hoax, or some other kind of error, it is self-limited, with an expiration date.

My apologies for getting the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrong. According to my Internet search, John G. Roberts, Jr. is the Chief Justice, having been nominated by Pres. Bush to this position, and then finally taking his seat on Sept. 29, 2005. Here is the link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

But was it Souter who issued the order, even if he is not the Chief Justice? Come December 2, it probably will not matter.

[ November 21, 2008, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Either Obama is a natural born citizen or he is not.

If it turns out that he is not, I will start a thread and proclaim that I was duped and played for a patsy by the liberal media. Furthermore, I will vote for the Republican nominee for President in 2012.

I openly challenge anyone who believes Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States to agree to start a similar thread, stating that you were duped and played for a patsy by the right-wing media, and to vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012 if it turns out that Obama meets the citizenship requirements for the Presidency.

Any takers?

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only those not born in America. The bit G2 didn't quote notes that anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he's a citizen even if neither of his parents were.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
(G2: in case you're wondering, you can find the answer in the 14th amendment.)

I know what you're saying but as Ron points out there is reportedly a tape Of Obama's paternal grandmother claiming she was present at Barack's birth in Kenya. The law I quoted above seems to address if Obama was indeed born in Kenya.

Berg's claim also is that Obama's college records would show that Obama received aid as a foreigner - as far as I know Obama has refused to release his college records.

There's enough there for some grand conspiracy theory type logic. I wouldn't mind seeing someone like the SC rule on it just to get it out of the way. I would think Team Obama would too just so there's not potential for whatever mischief could be made from it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like me.

"Thank you, everyone who has weighed in on this issue. I think the link to a Fact Check article, supplied by The Drake, was the most persuasive. I will say that because of that article, I am 95% convinced that the story that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or David Souter, or whoever (as stated in hundreds of blogs) issued an order for Obama to provide a valid, long-form Birth Certificate by Dec. 1, is not true. So I would say it is probably not true."

Wow. I apologize for doubting you would. [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where's Bruce Springsteen when you need him?
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it's crap like this that kept Michelle from being proud of her country all these years.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now here's something I didn't know:
quote:
Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen
Does that certificate really exist? I dunno:
quote:
When Jerome Corsi, senior WND investigator reporter, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate, he was told the records were sealed and would not be made available.
Berg apparently believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement. Thus a certification of live birth is all that's available.

Makes for great conspiracy theory ...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I looked up Wayne, got this:
quote:
.. the registration is a common practice in African countries whose citizens abroad have families with foreign nationals.
So I assume the registration exists and probably doesn't mean that much ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, if both parents are, say, British, and have a baby while they are visiting in Hawaii, wouldn't that entitle the child to dual citizenship? The nationality of the parents can confer citizenship, in addition to place of birth. Of course, when we are talking about the special status of "natural born" citizen, the requirements are much more stringent. If Obama were born in Kenya, he most likely would not be constitutionally qualified to be president.

The final deadline, of course, is the vote of the Electoral College on Dec. 15. If this vote is taken, and Obama is declared the official winner of the election, this would probably overrule anything even the Supreme Court might say. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court does not really have the power to overrule any action of government. The Court's role is solely that of advising on constitutionality. The Executive and Legislative branches have come to respect the authority of the court, as if their mere judgment actually repealed laws. But those laws are repealed only because they choose to regard it so. I think it very unlikely that a vote of the Electoral College, once taken, could be overturned. Some might demand for it to be so. But a majority most likely would demand that the judgment of the Supreme Court in this matter be ignored.

Many people think that the Supreme Court has gotten entirely too uppity, anyway, and seized power never intended for it to have by the framers of the Constitution. This would help put SCOTUS in its place.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The issue has always seemed to me to be a desparate right-wing smear/scare tactic. But, if it were proved he was not born on US soil (and not registered in an embassy or whatever you have to do to be a citizen at birth), then the Constitution should be followed.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom, if both parents are, say, British, and have a baby while they are visiting in Hawaii, wouldn't that entitle the child to dual citizenship?
Yes. But that's up to the other country. If both parents are British and have a child in Hawaii, we Americans choose to make that child an American citizen. Britain, for its part, allows anyone born to British citizens to be a British citizen. So the kid gets citizenship from both countries. In theory, if one parent were British and the other Australian, their child could wind up with three citizenships.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing is, if Obama isn't a natural born citizen, given that he certainly never went through the naturalization process, that would make him a NON citizen. In which case, he wouldn't have been eligible to be a US senator or an Illinois legislator. Heck, he wouldn't even be eligible to work in this country. So rather than pestering the SCOTUS with this, why don't the true believers just go to the INS and try to have him deported before the swearing in ceremony?
Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So rather than pestering the SCOTUS with this, why don't the true believers just go to the INS and try to have him deported before the swearing in ceremony?
[LOL]

And who would they find who'd have the balls to try that? [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks increasingly to me that Obama's best defense here is the Political Question doctrine. Trouble is that this is a doctrine that court supremacists have hated. PQ is basically that some constitutional issues were NOT meant to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. That SCOTUS is only the arbiter of some (albeit most) constitutional questions and not of other, "political" questions.

Here, the court should basically say, we aren't the arbiter of this political question. We refuse to hear it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really doubt that Obama cares about the tin-foil-hat brigade pushing this.

Nobody else takes it seriously. (except for internet fora populated by dweebs, of course)

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

This is the original document written by Andy Martin in behalf of Philip J. Berg. This details extensively Mr. Berg's argument about the verasity of the document supposedly verified by factcheck and why that document does not qualify as the original 1961 typewritten document that has only been attested to by the Hawaii AG and not made public. Thus his argument is still valid till the original 1961 typewritten document is released to the public.

As to the response request, this site (http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/11/19/berg-vs-obama-dept-of-justice-waives-right-to-respond-to-petition/) says the following:

quote:
Note the document says: “The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.” At this point, SCOTUS has not requested a response, only provided a date by which a response could be filed.
This was post 11/19/08. We still wait on SCOTUS to request a response.

Whether the election results should be overturned if it is discovered by action of the SC that Obama does not fit the criteria set forth by the Consititution to be president? It's a little amusing to me that the same people who are more than willing for the court to overturn the people's vote where SSM is concerned are the same people who say "for the good of the republic, even if Obama is found not to meet eligibility of President, we should disregard the SC's opinion."

Convenience much?

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  14  15  16   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1