US Surpreme Court to hear Obama case Dec 12th.

reply to post by Maxmars


A prostitute can bring a smile to your face........even if for just a few minutes.

Politicians...........never.

Originally posted by adkchamp
who gives a **** already!

It doesn't matter if you were born an American or not, Obama was raised as an American and he's clearly America's pick for president...thats it.

You sir are representative of what is wrong with this country. Most people are like you. No clue what the constitution is let alone have any respect for it. People like you are the reason this country will be invaded and occupied without resistance. People like you are the reason America has no identity left, and what we do have is marred by globalist wars, and crimes against our fellow man that are unforgivable. America elections are NOT about some feel-good ideology. It is about keeping together a Union that has lasted the test of civil war, world war, slavery, and countless other challenges, that without our Constitution, would not have been possible.

That particular stipulation in the Constitution is meant to PROTECT America from foreign infiltration, which is a very real threat.

I'm not saying Obama isn't legitimate, because I do not know. But if there's even a chance that he isn't, I'd like it to be looked at and reviewed using proper legal channels. Voting a foreign born person into the White House does not negate the Constitution. At that point they may even opt for a new election or to dissolve the government pending that election, and they would be right to do this.

Mind you, I'm a foreigner. And that is why people like you make me so angry. This is your country, why the hell do you not know anything about it?

This is a big problem IMO if in fact he was not born in the USA but at this point I don't see him going anywhere except to the oval office for 4 years.
Its unfortunate that this country has decided its OK to piss on the Constitution if they feel there is a good enough reason or if it serves their cause.
I am however optimistic because if he even manages to lasts for the full term (IE. not get impeached,etc) we only have 4 years to deal with it.I doubt very seriously that he will make it another 4 years. Let him enjoy it while it lasts.

So far all I have found is the opinion of the judge who heard Wrotnowski's case.

The plaintiff has not alleged any ‘‘act or conduct
by the [defendant] that . . . interprets some statute,
regulation or other authoritative legal requirement,
applicable to the election process’’; Bortner v. Woodbridge,
supra, 250 Conn. 268; or identified any mandatory
statute that the defendant has failed to apply or
follow. See Caruso v. Bridgeport, supra, 285 Conn. 647.
Indeed, he concedes that the election statutes neither
require nor authorize the defendant to verify the constitutional
qualifications of a candidate for the office of
president of the United States.8 He claims only that the
existing election laws governing presidential elections
are not adequate to ensure compliance with article two,
§ 1, of the federal constitution. Accordingly, this court
concludes that, under Scheyd, Bortner and Caruso, the
plaintiff has not made a colorable claim under § 9-323
that he is ‘‘aggrieved by any ruling of any election official
in connection with any election for presidential electors
. . . .’’ Therefore, the plaintiff lacked statutory standing
to bring his complaint and this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the matter. See Scheyd v. Bezrucik,
supra, 205 Conn. 504–507 (complaint under § 9-328 dismissed
when plaintiffs had not made colorable claim
that they were aggrieved by ruling of election official);
see also Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v.
Rocque, 267 Conn. 116, 127–48, 836 A.2d 414 (2003)
(complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
when plaintiff lacked statutory standing).

Basically he didn't make a colorable claim that he was aggrieved by the SOS and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case anyway. Still looking for the actual case, but no dice yet and I have other things to do at the moment. If no one else finds it before I get back on here I'll try to hunt those down as well.

Originally posted by skeptic1
The case is not going to be heard by the Court. It is going into conference just like the DeNofrio case. There is a difference between being heard and going into conference.

Expect the outcome to be the same.

EXACTLY...


How many of these baseless suits are being sent to SCOTUS? What is this a Denial of Service attack on SCOTUS?

Geesh... how many times can they say "Sorry... ain't worth our time?" Before folks like Omega GET IT?

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
Its unfortunate that this country has decided its OK to piss on the Constitution if they feel there is a good enough reason or if it serves their cause.

Uhmmm... how did we urinate on the constitution?


Did you know that congress can change it if the American people "feel there is a good enough reason or if it serves their cause"? They're called Ammendments.

Although none are required here, I love how there is always someone who thinks the Constiution is either 1. Infallible, or 2. Unchangeable.

I am however optimistic because if he even manages to lasts for the full term (IE. not get impeached,etc) we only have 4 years to deal with it.I doubt very seriously that he will make it another 4 years. Let him enjoy it while it lasts.

Actually, he will most likely have 8 years. He's starting with everything broken, and it can only go up from here.

Take your anti-Obama rhetoric elsewhere.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

I don't think any of these cases going forward unles they are absolutley perfect to the letter of the law. If there is even the smallest or slightest of mistakes or questionable issues, they will be thrown out.

Which do you think the court would rather deal with, just dismissing the issue all together or facing it head-on and potentially opening the door to god knows what.

You have to wonder though, if they are actually afraid.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by PowerSlave]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Ok........I will get it when your new god Obama opens up his records and lets "WE THE PEOPLE" see his birth certificate. That is all he has to do and this all goes away. But he doesn't, we won't, he hides, and pretends all this is not real and hopes it goes away. I assure you it will not. If this is not addressed before he takes office each and every law signed by him will be challenged in court. Nothing will get done in this country at the very worst time possible.......all because he REFUSES to show "WE THE PEOPLE" that he was indeed born in this country as is required by the CONSTITUTION......ever hear of it.

reply to post by omega007


He already did... and that is why SCOTUS is dismissing these cases like Highschool at 3:30.

This is exactly what I said would happen. Be prepared for lines of crying Obama supporters on this thread. They threw up the other thread trying to make it look like the case was dismissed when it was about a stupid angle. And I said on that thread that the justices have so many cases / angles against Barry that they are going to only look at the correct angle.

Ill be happy when they are done, thank god someone is going to settle this once and for all.

Originally posted by omega007
The Constitution does not work that way.........he has to have been born here in the USA.........so........some of us do care......alot.

Hopefully they will get it right and if he is not a natural born citizen......away he goes. Maybe they will keep his Senate seat open for a few more days just in case...........

I'm British and I view it a different way. In 2000 the Republicans did the Democrats with a candidate who didn't win the votes. In 2008 the Democrats did the Republicans with a candidate that was ineligable. When you will learn that you need both is debateable, but fun..... At least you're harmless on this issue this time......

I love how people are saying "SCOTUS" like they actually understand law.
You guys cracck me up, you can also tell people using certain phrases havent even read all the suits. Youre just stating what you want to happen not whats going to happen.

Originally posted by omega007
Looks like the Surpreme Court has seen the light and has determined that the question of Obama's place of birth will impact the Constitution and the US Presidency.

Well then, y'all don't forget to get your hopes up.

reply to post by adkchamp


It matters because it pertains to Constitutional requirements to hold the office.

You yourself may not care.... others do.

reply to post by redled


I agree and that is why this time we need to get it right........kick this wanna be Kenya born guy out of Washington once and for all and the rightful canidate can take us into 2009 the way it was meant to be.......With Hillary leading us into history...

Tongue firmly in cheek.

Cheer my Limey Bloke.

I would like to point out one interesting fact: this case made it to the Supreme Court. Now, do you think in your wildest dreams there was a simple solution to this case? Do you think all the lower courts would have been unable to rule that, since his mom was US, he must be US, too? I venture to say that our federal judges could have ruled that one easily enough.

So, there must be a case if it made it that far, right? Or do we have a lot of stupid judges?

reply to post by Jim Scott


The judge from Wrotnowski's original case said that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. So it may be that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases that involve the Constitution. I'd have to do some research to be 100% certain, but if the original judge for this case lacks subject matter jurisdiction it stands to reason that all judges in every court lack it as well with the SC being the exception.

John McCain was born in Panama, but that hurdle for presidency was cleared long ago. Where were you fuss-makers back then? The case was resolved in a "spirit of the law / letter of the law" approach. The 28-Feb-2008 New York Times has a good article about the Constitution's fuzzy "natural born" clause, check it out.

reply to post by Jenna


The more I research, the more it appears that you, Jenna, are correct, NO COURT can legally decide this matter. But, there are provisions in the Constitution.

The Twelfth Amendment provides (pertinent part) as follows:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President ; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

The Amendment specifies no grounds, procedure, or standards on or by which any elector’s vote may be challenged for any cause, by either the Electors or Members of Congress. But Congress has enacted a statute that partially addresses this matter:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States ; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. [Title 3, United States Code, Section 15

So, without an objection “signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives” no inquiry at all can go forward. And, although a correct result requires a complete inquiry into an objection, with appropriate findings of fact and law supported by competent evidence, the statute merely requires “a decision” each from the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I have begun the process of reducing the number of trees in this world sending faxes to my congress critters. Guess I'll have to plant some new ones to make up for it.

Oh god not another bloody thread on the Obama Birth Cert issue..... I really wish people would just build a bridge and get over it!

No matter what this court rules on the 12th, you’ll still find something else to whinge about Obama.

Mikey