More on that Birth Certificate thing...

[chernmax]

Anyone got something new on that pesky birth certificate thingy?

Yes, no one wants to admit who your daddy is!!!

 

[ImnoMensa]

There wouldnt be a pesky birth certificate thing if your "open" President would just show it.

Aint open government fun.?

We just saw it working with Pelosi closing the doors and not allowing any Republican debate on the biggest and most expensive spending package to ever hit the Hill.
She wrote it ,she shoved it down our throats without allowing it to be read and believe me brother she deserves all the credit for it.

Open?? Yeah like the open way Charles Rangels tax case was opened ---er --uh tabled.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...
If the law follows the whims & passions of the people: we are through.

Guess what, we are through.

As soon as the Feds put up bonds for sale to borrow the money for this or some other stimulus package and no one buys, it is over. Bankrupt. And that will be "Ba dea ba dea ... That's All Folks."

 

[BOP]

This is probably a rehash, but it consolidates a lot of stuff that's spread out all over:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

note the list of lefties. Reads like a roll call at a CAIR meeting.

A Guide to the Political Left; Individuals

 

[PsyOps]

That's ridiculous, and it's sad that you think that.

Really?

For the same reason the USSC found that the Gitmo detainees (enemy combatants) have Constitutional rights. I want you to find where it allows such a thing under our Constitution.

What about Roe v. Wade. Please show me where the Constitution states that it falls within the fed’s purview to legalize abortion? I thought these decisions were mandated to the states.

What about the Kennedy v. Louisiana case? The liberal members of the USSC ruled it was unconstitutional to put a child rapist to death. A 5-4 decision. How is it our esteemed Justices, all reading the same Constitution, be split on such an issue?

What about their decision to undermine our free speech by upholding campaign finance reform?

What about the USSC’s ruling to allow local governments to seize private property for development of non-public use violating the 5th Amendment?

There are so many examples it should make you sick. What gives you any feeling the USSC will act in the best initerest of the people and more importantly, the Constitution?

 

[4Father]

Really?

For the same reason the USSC found that the Gitmo detainees (enemy combatants) have Constitutional rights. I want you to find where it allows such a thing under our Constitution.

What about Roe v. Wade. Please show me where the Constitution states that it falls within the fed’s purview to legalize abortion? I thought these decisions were mandated to the states.

What about the Kennedy v. Louisiana case? The liberal members of the USSC ruled it was unconstitutional to put a child rapist to death. A 5-4 decision. How is it our esteemed Justices, all reading the same Constitution, be split on such an issue?

What about their decision to undermine our free speech by upholding campaign finance reform?

What about the USSC’s ruling to allow local governments to seize private property for development of non-public use violating the 5th Amendment?

There are so many examples it should make you sick. What gives you any feeling the USSC will act in the best initerest of the people and more importantly, the Constitution?

I'm sure everybody can find decisions that they feel are incorrect and it is pretty arrogant to think that just because you disagree with the decision that it is unconstitutional. But that wasn't even my point. My post that you quoted was:

PsyOps:
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.

4Father:
That's ridiculous, and it's sad that you think that.

I was responding to your comment that the Court would avoid a case because the outcome would be unpopular. That is ridiculous and sad. If you really feel that way you must be pretty jaded about the way our country is run. Even more so considering the balance of the Court these days.

Maybe I'm naive about the way the Supreme Court conducts its business, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I believe in the Court, no matter what it's ideological makeup and I have always thought of the Court as an effective check on the mob rules mentality.

Like I said, maybe I'm naive, but I hope you're wrong.

 

[PsyOps]

I was responding to your comment that the Court would avoid a case because the outcome would be unpopular. That is ridiculous and sad. If you really feel that way you must be pretty jaded about the way our country is run. Even more so considering the balance of the Court these days.

Maybe I'm naive about the way the Supreme Court conducts its business, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I believe in the Court, no matter what it's ideological makeup and I have always thought of the Court as an effective check on the mob rules mentality.

Like I said, maybe I'm naive, but I hope you're wrong.

This has nothing to do with popular. I would bet to guess if they were to take the case and decided, under Constitutional merit, that BO was disqualified the vast majority of Americans would agree. I'm talking about a select part of our population that would violently rise up everywhere. An entire city (Los Angeles) was under siege from the Rodney King thing. And this is miniscule in comparison. There's nothing jaded about that reality. It simply is what it is.

When so many decisions are made split down the middle, I have very little faith in our Justice system in that their ruling boiling more down to ideological views rather than actual Constitutional merits. The Gitmo decision is a good case in point.

 

[ImnoMensa]

I'm sure everybody can find decisions that they feel are incorrect and it is pretty arrogant to think that just because you disagree with the decision that it is unconstitutional. But that wasn't even my point. My post that you quoted was:



I was responding to your comment that the Court would avoid a case because the outcome would be unpopular. That is ridiculous and sad. If you really feel that way you must be pretty jaded about the way our country is run. Even more so considering the balance of the Court these days.

Maybe I'm naive about the way the Supreme Court conducts its business, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I believe in the Court, no matter what it's ideological makeup and I have always thought of the Court as an effective check on the mob rules mentality.

Like I said, maybe I'm naive, but I hope you're wrong.

They have already turned it down because it was unpopular. At least twice.
I dont trust the Supreme court as far as I could throw Rosie O'Moose.

 

[Tomcat]

Just read this today 2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility don't know if it's been posted elsewhere.