B
More on that Birth Certificate thing...
- Thread starter Bann
- Start date
bcp
In My Opinion
whats so funny to you? I mean, I find some humor in it,,
after all, the thought of letting non-natural citizens run for president is certainly a liberal thought, I look at this and say, typical liberal
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
It's not information concerning the actions or intent of any government agency. That's personal information held in trust by a government agency. Would like it if ANYBODY could file a form and get your SSN, Social or
any other info concerning you?
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
Well, if it just involves an ordinary American citizen, no. But as of January 20th, it doesn't. I'm not a lawyer, obviously, I just wondered if it could be used since the issue now involved the Executive Branch of the American government. Just wondering, that's all.
What's your opinion? Do you see what I'm trying to get at?TIA for any more input.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
More lawsuits
A new lawsuit is being prepared by a California attorney who already has four cases pending over the issue of President Obama's eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and this one will include a demand from state lawmakers who forward state funds to Washington for documentation of his qualifications.
...
Four already have signed up, including state Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee, who agreed to be a plaintiff "for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama."
A new lawsuit is being prepared by a California attorney who already has four cases pending over the issue of President Obama's eligibility to occupy to Oval Office, and this one will include a demand from state lawmakers who forward state funds to Washington for documentation of his qualifications.
...
Four already have signed up, including state Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee, who agreed to be a plaintiff "for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama."
PsyOps
Pixelated
SouthernMdRocks
R.I.P. Bobo, We miss you!
It is really hard to believe that none of this evidence made him accountable to American citizens. I doubt this will go anywhere at this point.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Personally, I think people need to realize that they are no longer in control of their government when NO ONE is responsible for verifying the eligibility of a government official to hold their position, and that no one can challenge said official because they do not have "standing" - they cannot demonstrate "injury"It is really hard to believe that none of this evidence made him accountable to American citizens. I doubt this will go anywhere at this point.
PsyOps
Pixelated
It is really hard to believe that none of this evidence made him accountable to American citizens. I doubt this will go anywhere at this point.
The USSC is not going to allow such a national crisis. If this were true through-and-through, without a doubt, they still wont touch it. They know what would ensue on our streets all over the country. They know people are very little concerned about the constitution.
Rommey
Well-Known Member
Are you really suggesting that the SCOTUS would totally disregard the US Constitution and the laws of the land on any issue, solely on the fact that some might be upset and do something illegal as a result of a correct, yet [to some] unpopular decision?
Are you suggesting that the SCOTUS thinks that Americans don't want them to be concerned about the US Constitution?
Are you suggesting that the SCOTUS isn't concerned with the US Constitution?
This_person
Well-Known Member
PsyOps
Pixelated
Not sure if I read sarcasm here or not...
Well, it's not like they haven't done it in the past? Roe v. Waded come immediately to mind.
Americans seem to want what's expediently best for them and if the Constitution gets in the way of that, then yes.
Being that the SCOTUS is typically split in most of their votes I would have to say that at least half of them are little concerned with the Constitution.
Well, it's not like they haven't done it in the past? Roe v. Waded come immediately to mind.
Americans seem to want what's expediently best for them and if the Constitution gets in the way of that, then yes.
Being that the SCOTUS is typically split in most of their votes I would have to say that at least half of them are little concerned with the Constitution.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
John Adams
While 90+ depositions say the soldiers wantonly shot down innocent civilians & boys...and nearly all of Boston demanded retribution...
John Adams stepped forward: took an unpopular task and proved that the law does NOT hear the clamor of the crowds...it understands justice & the law.--That is what made this nation great: courage...and respect for the law.
If the law follows the whims & passions of the people: we are through.
While 90+ depositions say the soldiers wantonly shot down innocent civilians & boys...and nearly all of Boston demanded retribution...
John Adams stepped forward: took an unpopular task and proved that the law does NOT hear the clamor of the crowds...it understands justice & the law.--That is what made this nation great: courage...and respect for the law.
If the law follows the whims & passions of the people: we are through.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
That's ridiculous, and it's sad that you think that.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
It's how Rosevelt's "New Deal" became legal
ImnoMensa
New Member
This thing should have been resolved one way or the other long before Obama was sworn as President. If people believe the United States Supreme Court ignored it's duty and settled for what would cause the least trouble , it is the Court that brought this about by it's inaction.
Do I believe the Supreme Court ducked this issue due to fear of what might happen were Obama found to be ineligible??
I believe this.: The Conservatuive members of the court were worried that moving on this issue might have caused riots and civil unrest. The liberal members were in Obama's pocket. That's my belief .
Do I believe the Supreme Court ducked this issue due to fear of what might happen were Obama found to be ineligible??
I believe this.: The Conservatuive members of the court were worried that moving on this issue might have caused riots and civil unrest. The liberal members were in Obama's pocket. That's my belief .
This_person
Well-Known Member
If I remember my history correctly, he threated to increase the number of justices - "pack the court" with people that agreed with his philosophy - unless they (the court) agreed with his philosophy.
Does that sound about right?
Hessian
Well-Known Member
FDR Played the system
The Republicans were an irrelevant minority after the collapse of Hoover in Fall 1932.
The first 100 days were packed with executive orders and rush legislation that the Dem party immediately endorsed.
There was little regard to cost.
Within 2 years: appeals began making their way to the supreme court (AAA and WPA...). When the court struck down a number of programs: FDR (with the press in his pocket) blasted the court and schemed to remove the elder justices and appoint at least 6 more to create a super majority: thus endorsing any further challenge.
This is where the Dems becme nervous as they took a peek at fascist Germany and Hitler's rise...and said that this action would throw the balance of power out wack: they said no.
Snapshot today...The Congress would likely NOT stand up to further radical measures and is giddy at the thought of imbalancing the court with hyper liberal justices.
3 years, 11 months.
The Republicans were an irrelevant minority after the collapse of Hoover in Fall 1932.
The first 100 days were packed with executive orders and rush legislation that the Dem party immediately endorsed.
There was little regard to cost.
Within 2 years: appeals began making their way to the supreme court (AAA and WPA...). When the court struck down a number of programs: FDR (with the press in his pocket) blasted the court and schemed to remove the elder justices and appoint at least 6 more to create a super majority: thus endorsing any further challenge.
This is where the Dems becme nervous as they took a peek at fascist Germany and Hitler's rise...and said that this action would throw the balance of power out wack: they said no.
Snapshot today...The Congress would likely NOT stand up to further radical measures and is giddy at the thought of imbalancing the court with hyper liberal justices.
3 years, 11 months.