More on that Birth Certificate thing...
- Thread starter Bann
- Start date
ImnoMensa
New Member
The Court hasnt the courage it takes to force Obama to produce his Birth certificate, its much easier not to have riots and just destroy the Constitution.
We will have 4 years with a usurper, an Unconstitutional illigitimate President and most people in this country could care less .
We will have 4 years with a usurper, an Unconstitutional illigitimate President and most people in this country could care less .
The Oyster Guy
New Member
Are you calling Scalia a pussy???
ImnoMensa
New Member
The Oyster Guy
New Member
What utter nonsense.
Eighty-four pages devoted to a silly wingnut fantasy... This thread is a monument to delusional, partisan group-think.
Congratulations to the Hysterical Right - you've managed to make the Looney Left look rational and composed by comparison.
Eighty-four pages devoted to a silly wingnut fantasy... This thread is a monument to delusional, partisan group-think.
Congratulations to the Hysterical Right - you've managed to make the Looney Left look rational and composed by comparison.
B
Beaver-Cleaver
Guest
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
I've been telling them this but they say I'm the kook.
No, we say you're the little pussy
Severa
Common sense ain't common
Perhaps Titled or someone more read on the laws can chime in on this...
I'm now reading that perhaps these cases are not being heard at this hour for a simple reason...
The votes that were done today by the states' electors will be tallied before both houses of Congress on January 8th, which will make the projected electoral votes official. (source: Wikipedia)
I'm now reading that perhaps these cases are not being heard at this hour for a simple reason...
The votes that were done today by the states' electors will be tallied before both houses of Congress on January 8th, which will make the projected electoral votes official. (source: Wikipedia)
This_person
Well-Known Member
Um, the main lawsuit discussed in this thread is a lawsuit filed by a liberal Democrat, not the "Hysterical Right", right?
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
ImnoMensa
New Member
Well for once we agree. It is utter nonsense.
Nonsense to hire lawyers and spend beaucoup bucks seeking technicalities to keep from doing the right thing.
Obama can make a phone call on his cell phone to Hawaii and tell the State authorities to turn over any birth records they have on him to anyone who wants to see them.
Its Obama that is keeping up the nonsense, and it will continue throughout his term until it is settled. It isnt going away. It may quiet down, but it will always be there. Until he stops this nonsense.
Whats the big deal they are not secret documents in most cases.
But we have to keep up this nonsense,
Tilted
..
As far as the two applications that SCOTUS has thus far denied (Donofrio and Wrotnowski), I don't think that could have had anything to do with their being denied. In my opinion, those applications were non-starters. First, there didn't appear to be any legal principle on which to grant cert in those cases (e.g. a decision by a lower court that conflicted with other decisions by lower courts or with a previous decision by SCOTUS, or a decision by a lower court on an unresolved question of law that needs to be settled by SCOTUS). Second, the arguments made in those two applications were very weak, and I suspect the Court didn't feel they needed to further clarify the issues addressed in those applications. Essentially, the argument by Donofrio and Wrotnowski was that the phrase 'natural born citizen', when used in the Constitution, can only be interpreted to mean someone who is born on US soil AND is born to two US citizens. There's just not much evidence to justify that conclusion, and SCOTUS has already ruled several times that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to make laws that govern Naturalization (i.e. Citizenship).
As far as Berg's petition goes, while it is possible that what you are referring to could be an issue that the Court considers, it doesn't seem likely that it would affect the decision to grant or deny the petition. Conceivably, the Court could believe that the question of standing technically changes based on the timing of certain events; however, such issues would only seem to come into play if they were actually 'hearing' the merits of the case - not when deciding on whether or not to 'hear' it. Furthermore, Berg's petition isn't likely to be considered before January 9th, so it will be a mute point anyway.
I still don't think that Berg's petition will be granted, but I do think it is possible that it will for this reason - the Court may see a need to settle some Constitutional questions that are likely to be at issue going forward:
(1) Does the US Constitution imply an inherent obligation on the part of anyone to verify the Constitutional qualifications of candidates to national office?
(2) If so, then whom does it place that obligation on? Does the 20th Amendment imply that Congress has just such an obligation when it comes to Presidential candidates?
(3) If it doesn't place these obligations on an entity certain (and even if it does), then whom has standing, under the Constitution, to challenge the qualifications of a candidate and/or an elected official and/or a serving official? Surely Constitutional requirements are meaningless if no one has the responsibility of verifying that they have been met AND no one has standing to question whether or not they have.
That last question gives the Court a very clear legal principle on which to grant Berg's petition in specific, should they find the need to answer it. The more I think about it, the less it would shock me if they did grant him review on a writ of cert, regardless of the merits of the birth certificate issue.
I will say that I give this Court the benefit of the doubt. At the end of the day, I believe they will decide Berg's petition on the basis of the same standards that they apply in the thousands of other cases that come before them. For the most part, the Court's history doesn't suggest to me that they would shy away from a controversial issue that they thought was in need of resolution, just because they were scared of the consequences. That's just my opinion and I certainly hope I'm right.
The Oyster Guy
New Member
Ummmm... take a look in the mirror, Sherlock: the Hysterical Right is the hyper-partisan sector of the wingnut blogosphere. You know, those same people that are clinging to some false hope that Obama is somehow ineligible to serve; and that the Hawaii SOS, Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews - are all just part of the cover-up.
It's exactly the same psychology that fuels religious cults: if someone disagrees with the undeniable tenets of the cult, then those people must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. And apparently, the Obama conspiracy now extends to our "gutless" Supreme Court - it's utter insanity.
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
Maybe you missed the part about it being a Clinton Democrat that filed the lawsuit!!!
ImnoMensa
New Member
To me the utter insanity is people like yourself who really dont care that Obama has spent millions fighting a case that he can solve so very simply.
In other words he was elected so the Constitutional requirement doesnt mean squat.
If Obama is truly qualified, what possible harm could it do for him to simply go down to the Supreme Court with the proper document in his hand.
The insanity is that you are frightened that he cannot prove it in court.
Why are you an others not encouraging him to prove his detractors wrong?
You should be saying , I sure will be glad when Obama shows up with that certificate and shoves this whole mess up Republicans azzes. Instead you encourage him to hide. That is insanity.
The Oyster Guy
New Member
The notion that Obama is "hiding" is simply another element of the fantasy that you've concocted for yourselves.
The SOS of Hawaii says he was born there. That's reality... End of story... Case closed... Finito...
Hessian
Well-Known Member
So...Oysterguy...
when the Att Gen of Florida sets a constitutionally supported deadline for ballet counting...and that deadline expired...and she closed the books: you were fully supportive ...you trusted her decision implicitly didn't you in 2000?
You urged the Gorenuts to let it go, the law has spoken...didn't you?
Anybody smell hypocrisy?
when the Att Gen of Florida sets a constitutionally supported deadline for ballet counting...and that deadline expired...and she closed the books: you were fully supportive ...you trusted her decision implicitly didn't you in 2000?
You urged the Gorenuts to let it go, the law has spoken...didn't you?
Anybody smell hypocrisy?
If this is so please provide a link as I certainly can find no such reference to any verification as you contend.