More on that Birth Certificate thing...

[aps45819]

I'd think the kid has got a point. Why is such a huge story confined to the internet - why aren't the Republican talking heads beating this drum like there's no tomorrow??? Very strange... maybe they're being paid to be silent?

:shrug: don't know, perhaps it's a non-story to the media that won't allow Coulter to critize Obama until some movement occurs. It's scheduled for the SC conference this Friday so maybe it will be back in the news if they allow it to go to trial.
I would expect that if this issue isn't satisified, EVERYTHING Obama signs will be challenged in court.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

:shrug: don't know, perhaps it's a non-story to the media that won't allow Coulter to critize Obama until some movement occurs.

Apsy, she was banned from NBC. Not the whole entire media. NBC. That's it. Far-left NBC, which is just the leftie's version of FOX News.

There's still: ABC, BBC, Bloomberg, CBN Newsworld, CBS, CNN, FOX News, and HLN.

 

[Pandora]

Supreme Court to take up eligibility

question, this Friday.

WASHINGTON – A conference is scheduled Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court during which justices will consider behind closed doors – again – taking up a case that could put to rest the questions about whether President-elect Barack Obama qualifies to occupy to Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that he be a "natural born" citizen.

Supreme Court to take up eligibility question <i>again</i>

Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis | Concerned American Voter | Concerned American Voter

 

[This_person]

Because, based on all accounts, Obama has shown the same amount of documentation as Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, etc. and you want him held to a higher level of accountability.

Were Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc., ever in question?

This is what happens when a new situation occurs - people realize we don't have a process to ensure our Constitution is met in these instances.

Based on your theory, Arnold Schwartzenegger (or however it's spelled) could be elected president. After all, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that no one has the standing to question his nationality, and providing no proof of nationality has been the precident set so far.

Arnold 2012!!

 

[This_person]

I'd think the kid has got a point. Why is such a huge story confined to the internet - why aren't the Republican talking heads beating this drum like there's no tomorrow??? Very strange... maybe they're being paid to be silent?

To whom?

No one knows for sure whether he was born in HI or not. There are conflicting reports from Obama himself as to what hospital it was; conflicting stories from the hospitals; conflicting reports from his blood family; etc.

It behooves no politician to bring it up in case it's NOT true that he was born elsewhere. It's been mentioned by many conservative talking heads, but not beaten upon because of the risk of being wrong.

We've had doctors, lawyers, police officers, and even at least one president who believed they saw UFOs - do we have official stories of UFO's accepted as mainstream knowledge? No, it makes too many people feel uncomfortable talking about because it may not be true.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[This_person]

Apsy, she was banned from NBC. Not the whole entire media. NBC. That's it. Far-left NBC, which is just the leftie's version of FOX News.

There's still: ABC, BBC, Bloomberg, CBN Newsworld, CBS, CNN, FOX News, and HLN.

Do you really think Fox is as bent out of context as NBC? I mean, come on, Andy.

 

[Pushrod]

Do you really think Fox is as bent out of context as NBC? I mean, come on, Andy.

They think that because Fox gives both sides a voice on the issues, any media outlet that lets any conservatives have a voice at all is considered totally right-wing in their eyes.

 

[awpitt]

Were Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc., ever in question?

This is what happens when a new situation occurs - people realize we don't have a process to ensure our Constitution is met in these instances.

Based on your theory, Arnold Schwartzenegger (or however it's spelled) could be elected president. After all, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that no one has the standing to question his nationality, and providing no proof of nationality has been the precident set so far.

Arnold 2012!!

Actually, Schwarzenegger can't be POTUS as he was born overseas to non US citizens. He didn't move here until he was 21.

 

[aps45819]

Actually, Schwarzenegger can't be POTUS as he was born overseas to non US citizens. He didn't move here until he was 21.

Why not?
If he signs a statement saying he was born in the US, evidently nobody has legal standing to question the validity of his statement.

 

[awpitt]

Why not?

Because he has already documented and stated that he was born overseas to non US citizens.

 

[This_person]

Actually, Schwarzenegger can't be POTUS as he was born overseas to non US citizens. He didn't move here until he was 21.

Everybody knows that. But, he wouldn't have to prove that this knowledge is not true.

Andy's saying the precident has been set because Bush didn't have to show his birth certificate any more than Obama should have to. I was saying by that logic, neither would Arnold. Just because everyone knows he wasn't born here, he wouldn't have to prove it any more than people feel Obama should have to prove it. And, the SCOTUS backed up that thought by telling Berg that he, as a mere citizen, didn't have "standing" to question whether a presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the office they seek. And, since no one else checks that out, Arnold is duly eligible because no one CAN question his eligibility.

 

[Tilted]

And, the SCOTUS backed up that thought by telling Berg that he, as a mere citizen, didn't have "standing" to question whether a presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the office they seek. And, since no one else checks that out, Arnold is duly eligible because no one CAN question his eligibility.

For clarity - SCOTUS hasn't told Berg that he doesn't have standing. A lower federal court told him that. SCOTUS has yet to take up the issue of whether or not they should review that decision.

 

[awpitt]

Everybody knows that. But, he wouldn't have to prove that this knowledge is not true.

Andy's saying the precident has been set because Bush didn't have to show his birth certificate any more than Obama should have to. I was saying by that logic, neither would Arnold. Just because everyone knows he wasn't born here, he wouldn't have to prove it any more than people feel Obama should have to prove it. And, the SCOTUS backed up that thought by telling Berg that he, as a mere citizen, didn't have "standing" to question whether a presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the office they seek. And, since no one else checks that out, Arnold is duly eligible because no one CAN question his eligibility.

Do you know that for a fact? I mean a real fact, not just stuff that's running around the Internet. We know as a fact that Bush never had to show his BC at any point during his election process? A lot of assumptions are being made here.

 

[Tilted]

Do you know that for a fact? I mean a real fact, not just stuff that's running around the Internet. We know as a fact that Bush never had to show his BC at any point during his election process? A lot of assumptions are being made here.

I don't think that This Person was asserting that as the fact of the matter. They were referencing the argument made by Beaver-Cleaver, in order to clarify the specific point they were making with the Arnold analogy.

 

[This_person]

For clarity - SCOTUS hasn't told Berg that he doesn't have standing. A lower federal court told him that. SCOTUS has yet to take up the issue of whether or not they should review that decision.

Perhaps I misunderstood the Nov 3 denial to Berg. I took that to mean they chose not to consider his "standing" appeal, but are still considering the other aspects now because it's a different issue (what with Obama winning the election).

 

[Tilted]

Perhaps I misunderstood the Nov 3 denial to Berg. I took that to mean they chose not to consider his "standing" appeal, but are still considering the other aspects now because it's a different issue (what with Obama winning the election).

That was a denial of Berg's application for an injunction, pursuant to his petition for writ of cert. Basically, Berg was asking Justice Souter to grant an injunction barring someone from doing something, until the Court decided what to do with the case in general. I don't recall exactly what the injunction was for, but it probably had something to do with stopping the election.

I don't recall off the top of my head what exact standards a Justice would have to apply when considering the application. But, essentially Justice Souter would have needed to find that Berg's original petition was likely to succeed on its merits and that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Justice Souter apparently didn't find those conditions to be met, so he denied the application for injunction. That in no way was a decision on the original petition, including the question of standing.

It's easy to get lost in all the details.

 

[This_person]

Do you know that for a fact? I mean a real fact, not just stuff that's running around the Internet. We know as a fact that Bush never had to show his BC at any point during his election process? A lot of assumptions are being made here.

No, I don't. I was stating it was Andy's suggestion, not mine.

However, in all of this I've yet to hear the process by which the Constitutional eligibility is determined. If it was, this whole thing would have been answered quite some time ago. Therefore, I don't think it's a bad assumption to suggest no one ever looked, because there's no reason to if no one asks.

 

[This_person]

It's easy to get lost in all the details.

That it is. Almost as if it's designed to be that way

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[This_person]

That was a denial of Berg's application for an injunction, pursuant to his petition for writ of cert. Basically, Berg was asking Justice Souter to grant an injunction barring someone from doing something, until the Court decided what to do with the case in general. I don't recall exactly what the injunction was for, but it probably had something to do with stopping the election.

I don't recall off the top of my head what exact standards a Justice would have to apply when considering the application. But, essentially Justice Souter would have needed to find that Berg's original petition was likely to succeed on its merits and that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Justice Souter apparently didn't find those conditions to be met, so he denied the application for injunction. That in no way was a decision on the original petition, including the question of standing.

It's easy to get lost in all the details.

Speaking of "lost in the details", any idea what happened here? It's well past the 16th.

 

[Tilted]

Speaking of "lost in the details", any idea what happened here? It's well past the 16th.

Since that application was pursuant to Berg's original petition, and that original petition was denied, it became effectively mute.

But, from a technical standpoint, they just released the list of orders from the January 16th conference, today. That would ordinarily have been released on Monday, but I'm guessing that the Court was closed for both the holiday on Monday and the Inauguration on Tuesday, so the orders didn't come out until today. The application was indeed denied, but its hard to imagine how it wouldn't have been.