Eligibility still alive

8/18/2014 8:55:09 PM	Eligibility still alive
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	Obama Eligibility Case Still Alive Share this Tweet this Google + AUGUST 18, 2014 9:03 AM OBAMA NATION A new demand for resolution cites Supreme Court’s precedent (Tea Party) – The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president of the United States under the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement is again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, reports WND. The Supreme Court has already refused to hear a number of previous cases, ruling that Obama’s eligibility is not for the courts to decide because it is a political question. The judges have argued that the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court. However, a plaintiff has come forward claiming to have suffered a specific and individual injury in the form of $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Impeach Obama NOW! A friend-of-the-court brief has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the constitutional experts at William J. Olson, P.C. and the United States Justice Foundation in which the president’s eligibility is being questioned. The high court is being asked to take up the case of Christopher John Rudy, a registered patent attorney who paid “fee increases” totaling $90 under the America Invents Act to the Patent and Trademark Office. This particular act was “purportedly enacted into law in September 2011 by Congress and the president.” Christopher John Rudy sued for a refund “on the ground that the AIA was invalid, having been signed into law by Barack Obama, a person who … was not a ‘natural born citizen,’ and thus, was ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States.” The courts insisted they had no authority to look into Obama’s eligibility and rejected his claim. Explaining Rudy’s argument, the law brief states: “Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a ‘natural born citizen’ has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court – and thus lacked ‘legal’ standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90 because of the new law signed by President Obama.” In addition, the brief argues that until now, “no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the president.” In their statement, the attorneys said: “Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90 and a declaration that, unless he is a ‘natural born citizen,’ President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring that the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a ‘political question.’” ‘Constitutional eligibility’ ruling already out, setting precedent The attorneys also note that the dispute is arising just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a question of constitutional eligibility in which an order of the National Labor Relations Board was invalidated because members were appointed by Obama in an unconstitutional manner. Therefore, that made them constitutionally ineligible to be on the board. In their statement the attorneys said: “Our amicus brief in Rudy argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether members of the NLRB meet the constitutional requirements of their office, it can also decide whether the president of the United States meets the constitutional requirements of his office.” They continued: “Further, as our brief demonstrated, the requirement that a president be a ‘natural born citizen’ is a fixed legal principle prescribed by the Constitution, with the purpose to insulate the office from foreign influences that would compromise the president’s sworn oath to ‘defend, preserve, and protect’ the Constitution of the United States.” In the NRLB ruling by the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer noted the Federalist Papers “make clear that the Founders intended th[e] method of appointment, requiring Senate approval, to be the norm … because … the need to secure Senate approval provides ‘an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.” Justice Antonin Scalia argued that when questions “involving the Constitution’s government-structuring provisions are presented in a justiciable case, it is the solemn responsibility of the judicial branch ‘to say what the law is.’” The attorneys acknowledged the subject is one that may be unpopular, explaining: “Many object to any challenge to the eligibility of a president, or presidential aspirant, but if the law is to apply equally to every person, presidents cannot be deemed to be above the law based on vague tests such as whether the case presents ‘political question.’ Indeed, demonstrating that the term ‘natural born citizen’ is a constitutional requirement that has continuing political significance which needs resolution are questions not just about President Obama, but also about Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and others.” However, “the executive appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, the presidential eligibility provision of Article II, Section 1 – especially its ‘natural born citizen’ requirement – is part of the ‘enduring structure’ of the federal government established by the U.S. Constitution,” said the attorneys. Attorneys argue, ‘judicially enforceable standards’ In their brief the attorneys argue: “This court unanimously decided that there are judicially enforceable standards limiting the president’s recess appointment power [in the NLRB case.] In the instant case, the question before the court is whether there are judicially enforceable limits governing the exercise of the powers of the presidency by a person who allegedly does not meet the eligibility requirement that he be a ‘natural born citizen,’ or whether that question is nonjusticiable, enforceable only at the discretion of the Congress.” continued Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
8/18/2014 8:55:19 PM	Eligibility still alive
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	In March a decision was handed down in the Alabama Supreme Court regarding Obama’s eligibility. It ended like previous challenges. In a 7-2 Alabama Supreme Court decision, the majority had no opinion on the eligibility issue itself. The dissenting minority in the case—Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore—concluded the case does have serious constitutional significance, warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state. In Moore’s dissent he wrote that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.” Moore argues, “Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function.” Moore stated that the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.” “Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.” Still another judge wanted eligibility confirmed Parker, the second judge in the minority, agreed with Moore’s reasoning, except he stated that he would call for the secretary of state to investigate eligibility issues once she “has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot.” Earlier, both justices expressed concern about the issue. Parker had filed a special, unpublished concurrence in which he argued that plaintiff Hugh McInnish’s charge of “forgery” was a legitimate cause for concern. Parker wrote, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.” In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders. Upon demanding to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander-in-chief of the military before carrying out deployment orders, Lakin was stripped of his rank and removed from the military. Lakin argued that the orders would be illegal if Obama was not eligible to be president. At the time, Moore stated that Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.” “And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” said Moore. In that same 2010 interview with WND, Moore stated he had not seen convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and in fact, there considerable evidence suggesting Obama is not a “natural born citizen.” Moore said, “This is the strangest thing indeed.” “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.” In a case brought on behalf of Virgil Goode, a 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee, and Hugh McInnish, Alabama Republican Party leader, Alabama’s highest court was asked to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve. There has been one formal law enforcement investigation of Obama’s birth certification which was conducted by a Cold Case Posse assembled by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona. That investigation found evidence that the birth certificate presented by the White House as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility actually is fraudulent. It was determined to be created on a computer and not representative of any official document. The possibility of fraud and forgery committed against American voters has been raised by Arpaio’s investigators. ‘You tell me about eligibility’ Billionaire Donald Trump is among the skeptics raising doubt over Obama’s eligibility. Although Trump has said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, he also quickly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t, either. Trump at one point, offer to pony up $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if Obama would release his passport records as well as authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records. As Trump argues it, those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student. If he did it could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.” In a conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Karl stated that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility. “Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.” And Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was[n't] born in the United States, do you?” Trump responded, “I have no idea.” “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.” When Karl responded he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on it. “You just said you’re pretty sure. … You have to be 100 percent sure,” said Trump. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.” - See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/obama-eligibility-case-still-alive-51960/#sthash.Ht0a8pwq.dpuf
8/19/2014 9:28:57 AM	Eligibility still alive
tileman1814 Kalispell, MT 64, joined Nov. 2007	I don't expect to see the sissified pussies in Washington do anything about this until after Obama is out of office and gone. By the time they get around to addressing all of the Obama bullshit it will become commonplace and ten times as hard to fix. Semper Fi !!!
8/19/2014 10:29:03 AM	Eligibility still alive
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	Yup. If he is ever out of office. Martial law and a dictator is imminent.
8/19/2014 3:58:13 PM	Eligibility still alive
hodag Nome, AK 62, joined Nov. 2007	Quote from shawnee_b: Yup. If he is ever out of office. Martial law and a dictator is imminent. Yup! Dictators don't very often step down from their throne.
8/19/2014 9:09:54 PM	Eligibility still alive
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from hodag: Yup! Dictators don't very often step down from their throne. I'm about 100% positive he can't (because of the arrogant dictator he is, and won't, same reason. I have thought this since he got in.

skipthegames apps

mega peraonals