Huge News! Obama Must Prove Eligibility in Court Now as Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Originally posted by Kafternin
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Republican governor, the DNC, the FBI, are all lying and covering this up.
My god man. Do you have any idea where we can find a Russian Dentist/Real Estate Agent and a scanner repairman to bust this wide open?

Government officials lie all the time.

I need proof, not scouts honor.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Kafternin
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Republican governor, the DNC, the FBI, are all lying and covering this up.
My god man. Do you have any idea where we can find a Russian Dentist/Real Estate Agent and a scanner repairman to bust this wide open?

Government officials lie all the time.

I need proof, not scouts honor.

I just agreed with you. The only people we can trust now would be a Russian Dentist and a scanner repairman. Know where to find any? What are you arguing?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Can you find where ANY of the previous presidents were "vetted in the official capacity" that you're requiring from Obama?

Obama was vetted MORE than all the other presidents have been. Yet he is the first who is questioned, even AFTER he has shown both styles of his birth certificate to the whole world.

Obama's Nomination Certificate signed by DNC Chair AND received by the Hawaii Board of Elections is HERE

It says:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."

What kind of additional vetting are you wanting?

They want the sooper sekirit forms listing everything that Obama's ever done in his entire life, signed in blood by the ghost of J Edgar Hoover and witnessed by a passing archangel.

reply to post by Kafternin


I know I know.

The scouts honor is the two fingers.

The "officials" keep their fingers crossed behind their backs

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

They want the sooper sekirit forms listing everything that Obama's ever done in his entire life, signed in blood by the ghost of J Edgar Hoover and witnessed by a passing archangel.

Well actually I think the politicians should consider that !

At least people might see some credibility instead of uncertainty and question marks all over their foreheads.

It might be better than the mafia blood oaths the take now.

reply to post by SunnyDee


Just catching up on random dumb things said in this thread.

Do you have a problem with a court deciding on all this and let it be final? If he's all good, no worries right?

Yes indeed I do have a problem with a court deciding on all this and letting it be final. Yes, he's all good, no worries there.

The problem is you want the COURTS to rule on Presidential eligibility and I have a HUGE problem with that. That problem is THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Constitution gives the court NO role in determining Presidential eligibility. None. Zip. Nada. Nil. Eligibility is the sole responsibility of CONGRESS. Congress exercises this duty when it counts the Electoral Votes; the candidate may be challenged at that time according to Congressional rules established for exactly that purpose.

Further, you want the COURT to violate the "Full Faith and Credit" rule in the Constitution and demand the State of Hawai'i 'do something' other than issue a Birth Certificate.

It is really beyond me why Orly and her fans are so intent on punching holes in the Constitution and especially the Separation of Powers rule. It is that rule that prevents the US from descending into a dictatorship, yet she rails against it with every waking breath, insisting that it should be violated. Orly has exhibited nothing but contempt for the Constitution and is truly a loud, outspoken, unambiguous enemy of the Constitution, and yet she is idolized by deluded folk who think she is trying to uphold it. This is truly bizarre.

Now the hearing described in the OP is about ballot access, not eligibility, and Georgia State law provides for challenges to candidates right, according to Georgia State law, to appear on the ballot. That is all 100% fine. Of course there is not a gnat's chance that the challenge will be upheld, nor any similar challenges in any other State, but the challenge is quite permissible under Georgia State law.

Originally posted by spyder550
Georgia is not a bastion of intelligence

So, where are you actually from?

I guess as well that you think Atlanta reps for all of GA?

Whatever.

people are idiots. if he really doesnt have citizenship to be president, it doesnt matter it simple means the people in power wanted him in power, you do really think that black man would have been president if he wasnt already chosen, i thought the folks on this site knew all this already. folks act as if he used hoodoo to get elected or something.

reply to post by rnaa

Further, you want the COURT to violate the "Full Faith and Credit" rule in the Constitution and demand the State of Hawai'i 'do something' other than issue a Birth Certificate.

the "Full Faith and Credit" rule sounds interesting.

what is it exactly.

in there may swim the piranhas.

reply to post by xuenchen

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is invoked primarily to enforce judgments. When a valid judgment is rendered by a court that has jurisdiction over the parties, and the parties receive proper notice of the action and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that the judgment receive the same effect in other states as in the state where it is entered. A party who obtains a judgment in one state may petition the court in another state to enforce the judgment. When this is done, the parties do not relitigate the issues, and the court in the second state is obliged to fully recognize and honor the judgment of the first court in determining the enforceability of the judgment and the procedure for its execution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

more

Originally posted by Kafternin
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

more

So that means all states must accept Obama's birth certificate?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Kafternin
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

more

So that means all states must accept Obama's birth certificate?

As long as THE STATE OF HAWAII says it is what they say it is, yep. Hawaii says that is a certified copy of the birth registration for our president and since the state says so, the other states must comply.

Originally posted by Kafternin
As long as THE STATE OF HAWAII says it is what they say it is, yep. Hawaii says that is a certified copy of the birth registration for our president and since the state says so, the other states must comply.

Oh dear, there go all the silly court cases claiming obama is not eligible....

reply to post by Kafternin


I wonder why that court in GA (and Alabama too?) is continuing on ?

Given The Full Faith and Credit Clause, how will that affect the ballot issues ?

Does all this mean that all the political parties are part of each States' government for voting and ballots ?

There must be other legal issues.


(still can't find any diplomas, I would think Mr Obama would proud to show some)

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Kafternin
As long as THE STATE OF HAWAII says it is what they say it is, yep. Hawaii says that is a certified copy of the birth registration for our president and since the state says so, the other states must comply.

Oh dear, there go all the silly court cases claiming obama is not eligible....

Hmmm...I wonder if that explains why after 4 years of this crap nothing has ever come of it but from some online rags and conspiracy nuts.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Kafternin

 

I wonder why that court in GA (and Alabama too?) is continuing on ?

I have no idea but probably for attention and election purposes. It is not above judges around here to flock to fringe issues to nab votes. Barely anyone pays attention to judicial elections here. I honestly do not know but I am more than willing to bet on the outcome. Are you?

Given The Full Faith and Credit Clause, how will that affect the ballot issues ?

What ballot issues?

Does all this mean that all the political parties are part of each States' government for voting and ballots ?

There must be other legal issues.

I am honestly not sure what you just asked me.

(still can't find any diplomas, I would think Mr Obama would proud to show some)

I am proud of mine but you have not seen it. Are you proud of yours? Where is it?
Do you seriously think he just appeared one day?

reply to post by xuenchen

I wonder why that court in GA (and Alabama too?) is continuing on ?

The obvious answer is because Orly got her legal knowledge off the back of a cereal packet.

The responsive answer, is that Georgia allows citizens to challenge a candidate's right to be on the ballot. Georgia requires a candidate to be eligible for the office before they can be on the ballot. In some States you can run for any office you like, whether you are eligible or not. Of course, if you get the most votes you cannot be sworn into that office.

It is important to note that the hearing is about whether or not Obama meets the criteria to appear on the ballot in Georgia. There are only four criteria that can be challenged: Natural Born Citizen, Age, Residency and Term Limit. That's it. Nothing else is relevant and anything not pertaining to those specific criteria cannot be heard.

So the challengers will demand that the hearing check Obama's eligibility. His lawyers will hand over the President's birth certificate - either of the two published certificates will do - and an affidavit attesting to the fact that he has been resident in the USA for at least 14 years. Fraud will be alleged with no evidence and rejected. The Birth Certificate will be accepted as the FFaC rule requires. That will all take about 10 minutes I would think.

Some challenger will bring up de Vattel, and Obama's lawyers will quote Wong Kim Ark. That might take another 10 minutes depending on how long the Judge lets the challenger waffle on about de Vattel. There may well be other side issues.

And that will be the end of story except for Orly's brain explosion.

Orly will of course attempt to continue to splutter and whine for as long as the judge will allow about Social Security numbers and the Judge will ask politely where the Constitution says anything about Social Security numbers having anything to do with eligibility to appear on the Georgia ballot. She will then start accusing the judge of being like Stalin, let me feenish, this is the greatest crime in the history of mankind, and you judge are a traitor and the entire Georgia elections staff will be found to have committed treason (another favorite abuse of Constitution she likes to draw upon in times like these)... and let me feeneesh! If the judge can stand her long enough for her to get really wound up, he might just hit her with sanctions. And when she gets through with all the appeals she is bound to go through, she could end up being classed as a vexatious litigant; that I'd like to see.

Given The Full Faith and Credit Clause, how will that affect the ballot issues ?

Not sure what you are asking here. The FFaC clause requires the State of Georgia to acknowledge an officially certified Birth Certificate from Hawai'i as genuine.

Since Obama's Birth Certificates are officially certified, and all the security emblems are there (signature of issuing official, raised or colored seal, security paper) and Hawai'i clearly places it under FF&C (with the phrase "This document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding"), the Birth Certificates will be accepted on its face.

By the way, notice that the Birth Certificates presented will not be photocopies or computer scans - those are not Birth Certificates, they are images of Birth Certificates. The Birth Certificate is the paper document that physically printed and certified by the State of Hawai'i.

Does all this mean that all the political parties are part of each States' government for voting and ballots ?

No, but the major parties have arranged it so the that they can take advantage of the States election mechanisms that are in place for General elections and not have to construct duplicate mechanisms. This actually works to the advantage of the States too, because they can use the Primaries as practice for the General.

The parties selection process for its candidates in a general election are a matter for the party and the party only; it really has nothing what-so-ever to do with the State who is only interested in who the candidates for the General election. If the Political Parties in the state want to run a raffle to pick their candidate, that is up to them The caucus states don't use State resources for their process, I believe. However, if the Political Parties in a State want to run a Primary Election they can essentially contract with the State to run it for them. The State legislature (which is populated by members of the Political parties, remember) defines the rules of the Primary, but is my understanding that the Parties actually pay for it, not the taxpayer.

There must be other legal issues.

I expect so, but you'll have to be more specific to get a reasonable reply.

reply to post by rnaa


Good explanation. Thanks for the time.

So in other words, the only way to challenge the BC issue would be to somehow prove the Hawaiian authorities have acted and certified fraudulently. Maybe that is what people are suggesting.

If that is ever "proven", then the FFaC would apply in that context.

very interesting.



Jeeesh, what do some states do if/when a write-in wins an election

The obvious answer is because Orly got her legal knowledge off the back of a cereal packet.

I thought it was from the instructions from an empty potato chip bag contest ! .. I wonder if Orly has stainless steel fillings in her teeth?

It is important to note that the hearing is about whether or not Obama meets the criteria to appear on the ballot in Georgia. There are only four criteria that can be challenged: Natural Born Citizen, Age, Residency and Term Limit. That's it. Nothing else is relevant and anything not pertaining to those specific criteria cannot be heard.

That scares me. It looks like a convicted criminal could be on their ballot.

Originally posted by xuenchen

That scares me. It looks like a convicted criminal could be on their ballot.



I am curious why that scares you.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I DEMAND to see ron pauls' original long form birth certificate in person with my lawyer

otherwise we will have to assume he is a muslim agent sent here to destroy america

seems kinda silly, right ?

edit on 7-1-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Kind of.

If Dr. Paul was brown or even a slight hue of bronze, your post would have received 50+ stars rather than the lonely 1.