US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Centurion

We gird our loins and wait. Thats what we do. The seeds are already being planted. If you don't believe me turn on your local rap station and listen to the talk and opinion shows after 10 pm. The orchestration of wide spread dissidence is already in the pipeline!

Zindo

Don't know where to even go to listen to those, but that's pretty much what I'm afraid would happen - the riots of the 60's all over again.

But should we let the fear of that hold us hostage to a candidate breaking the law to get elected - if that's what it turns out to be?

reply to post by Fletcher33


I was wrong. There is no Federal law, but some states are bound by law and pledge.

Source

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

A list of states can be accessed there.
24 states are NOT bound by law or pledge.
27 are... (DC makes 51)

California, Ohio and Florida are bound by state law.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think your instincts are correct. There is no LAW stating that the electoral college MUST vote according to their constituencies. It is an 'honor' system. AND it has been violated in the past.

The electoral college MUST go!

EDIT TO ADD:

BH - I guess I was wrong. But not ALL states have this requirement. I wonder if it represents enough votes to be meaningful?

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


In 2004, JFK's daughter Caroline gave an incitefull glimpse of the electoral college and according to her they are under no constraints to vote in any manner other than their own belief. I found this amazing. Her first statement to the group on C-span was what clinched it. Her quote was " The electoral college is there to curtail the tyranny of the masses"! I understood right there and then that our vote meant nothing, it was all smoke and mirrors!

Zindo

This is great news.

I feel personally that both are US citizens, but weirder things have been known to happen. I say that they take up the case and settle this once and for all. Mainly because I want them to uphold the constitution. I also hope Congress assigns responsibility to some agency to verify that future candidates are indeed complying with the US Constitution.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So to a degree his win was assuming that all "players" vote as they did in November, this recent activity regarding his birth status could change the minds of some elector votes. This is wild!!! And thanks for looking that up I was researching as well!!

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Fletcher33]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Fletcher33]

Originally posted by Fletcher33
So to a degree his win was assuming that all "players" vote as they did in November,

Every president's win assumes that. And rarely, several have changed their vote. It's seriously frowned upon. But something like this would give people good reason to change their vote. (if they rule against Obama.)

What would happen? The SCOTUS would probably figure that out before announcing. I would hope. If they rule against Obama, it would be accompanied by the resolution.

I agree, jam. This is something that needs to be checked from now on.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

So what happens if this matter is resolved in Obama's favor? Would this be the end of it? Or they just going to come back changing the language of previous litigation until they get some kind of favorable results?

Because seriously this is getting old.

I'm a noob in politics and wonder, will they decide collectively or individualy on the eligibility issue? Dumb question probably but so often I see them lumping everything together in order to pull a fast one and wonder if this is a way to clear barry so he won't have to deal with Berg, Keyes and the all others?

People,
who do you think these electors are? Minnesota has 10 but do you think if McCain won the popular vote in Minnesota that the same 10 people would be the electors? NO. The person that wins gets the electors. There aren't 10 people picked before the election that are just waiting to see who their state votes for and then they say, "gee, I guess were voting for him." These are party loyalist. Obama will get all the electoral votes he won unless someone has spent their lives faking out the party all for this one hopeful opportunity to cast a different vote.
What Country is Obama's mother from? Was she a United States citizen at the time of Obama's birth? If so, then Obama could have been born in Iceland for all that matters. I doubt very, very, much that SCOTUS is going to give this particular issue of that case any attention what so ever.
....The Constitution has, and will always, be interpreted to suit the needs of whomever is asking the question....not the question itself.

reply to post by Bunch


I would think that the Justices would ask to see the vault copy BC and if it checks out, that would be the end of it.

It is getting old, but with all of these lawsuits (17 at last count), people think there is something to this, they feel that there is a problem, and they want their questions answered and Obama's qualification of "natural born" verified.

I would think that if the vault copy BC is verified by SCOTUS, then that will end the quesitons.

reply to post by Bunch


What up Bunch.

If in Obama favor than most people will move on just like when the courts ruled in Bush favor over Gore. However, you will still have those who will believe that the Court was bought. Go figure. Like I said before, I hope Congress addresses this so it doesn't happen in the future. They need some agency to be responsible for verifying candidate's eligibility.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


A much as I hate to say it the Masses can be just as tyrannical and psychotic at times as Hitler or Stalin. There are plenty of examples in history, e. g. The French Revolution, and even Plato wrote in his book The Republic that he had little faith in democracy cause a mob can be just as bad as a tyrant, hence the whole idea about philosopher rule.

[edit on 20/11/08 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by ZindoDoone


You have it correct, that the citizens have no right to vote for President.

Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom realized that a significant portion of the population were ignorant, and thus their voting for a President could be manipulated to the detriment of the nation.

A recent poll showed that the bulk of Obama voters, taken post-polling, didn't know who the Vice President was, who Nancy Pelosi was, who Harry Reid was, not which party controlled Congress.

We may have a Constitutional problem, but we have a stupidity problem in this country far worse. Voting by race, slick talking ability, and a good presentation. No idea of the political process, the most basic knowledge of politics, nor the effects of their votes. Couldn't tell you the first thing he's accomplished, how he was elected to his first State office --NOTHING!

Thus, the wisdom of our forefathers, and the electoral college.

As far as buttoning down the hatches, you'll note that when the natives go on the warpath, they usually burn and destroy their own neighborhoods first. It's a real bright group. Reckless, a bit dangerous to be sure, but about five beers short of a six-pack.

Man, this will be interesting to watch.

There's hope for America yet.

reply to post by skeptic1


But hasn't his birth certificate been analyzed already and found to be legit? I think that was done sometime ago and people still want to beat this dead horse.

I mean more power to them, thats what the courts are for but at some point you got to let go.

Originally posted by Bunch
So what happens if this matter is resolved in Obama's favor? Would this be the end of it? Or they just going to come back changing the language of previous litigation until they get some kind of favorable results?

OMS and I were just talking about this. IF Obama was born in Hawaii, it's VERY likely his lawyers advised him to wait for it to go to the SCOTUS because once they rule, it will be finalized.

If he had responded to the first case (Berg?) at the lower level, then these other lawsuits would still have happen and he'd have to end up "proving" himself over and over again, to every state and disgruntled former political opponent who got the itch to get in his way.

So for the question, "Why doesn't he just SHOW it"??? That could VERY well be the answer.

Obama doesn't strike me as a person who would either lie about this or try to sneak in under the radar, hoping he didn't get caught. He covers all the bases.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
will they decide collectively or individualy on the eligibility issue?

If you mean will the justices rule as one, I imagine they will do it just as any other case. Majority rules. So 5 of them would have to determine him "eligible" or "ineligible".

Originally posted by skeptic1
I would think that the Justices would ask to see the vault copy BC and if it checks out, that would be the end of it.

That's what's interesting. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, the SCOTUS COULD rule him "natural-born". See John McCain's SCOTUS Ruling

reply to post by Bunch


As far as I know, no Court or Judge has seen at it, only some officials in Hawaii have looked at it.


As much as I had to go through for my security clearance I am really amazed there is this kind of issue over someone who is supposed to be commander in chief. There should be some kind of national security qualifications to be president amended to the constitution. Being popular and charismatic shouldn't be all you need to be president. There should be checks to make sure the person is not a threat to national security.

reply to post by Bunch


His certificate of live birth was analyzed by those who are arguably biased in his favor, and Hawaii said they hold it. No one has actually analyzed his vault birth certificate that I am aware of. And though this is the issue that keeps getting brought up here, it is not the only issue in these lawsuits.

If I've done my math correctly, Obama won 127 electoral votes in 10 of the 24 states that are not required by law to vote one way or the other. The states in Blue are the electoral votes that can technically change, but where Obama won the Popular Vote:

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

www.npr.org...#/president?view=race08

If, let's just say, the Supreme Court decided Obama was ineligable, these potential 127 electoral votes would give McCain a grand total of 300 to Obama's 238. That's presuming the other states legally are not allowed to change their votes and the ones that are allowed, all do so in favor of McCain.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Alexander_Supertramp]

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Do we REALLY need another thread on this?

As far as I know the Supreme Court of the United States scheduling this conference on Obama's eligibility has not been discussed on this site as of yet.

Search on SCOTUS and you will find lots...

here is just one... www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here is another
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are tons of em here. And they all turned into hate fests... which is why I said what I said.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]