Obama's birth to go to supreme court

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ryanmercer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    1,381
    38
    Speedway, IN
    First, if you by chance voted for Obama... please don't turn this thread into a fight about if Obama is or isn't a good candidate. If you don't like Obama and don't want him please don't turn this thread into a Obama is *insert statement here* get rid of him. I'd like to keep this thread neutral and just for information about the Supreme Court hearing... but you all are free to do as you wish... now that I've said that...

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, Dec. 5, will review a case challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president of the United States under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the position can be filled only by "a natural born citizen." If you would like the justices to know there are millions of Americans concerned about this issue, with sincere, heartfelt convictions that the Constitution must be followed to the letter, here's your chance.
    The justices do not accept faxes. They do not accept e-mails from the public. With the clock running out, there is only one way to reach them � through overnight delivery of your letters. WND has set up a system and secured discount pricing from FedEx to send the following letter over your name and address:
    Supreme Court of the United States
    One First Street, NE
    Washington, DC 20543
    Dear Associate Justice _________:
    If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
    A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
    Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States. That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced � even if doing so may prove awkward.
    With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
    I urge you to take this matter most seriously � and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
    If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
    There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States.
    I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
    Sincerely,
    Your name
    Your address
    https://shop.wnd.com/store/item2559...134-2658931-fd8c31ae601f0a5af9aec89e64a43aa8&

    Will send the letter for you via fedex for 11.95, where it would be about 13$ as they say (I work for fedex, that's about dead on) if you sent it yourself via fedex.

    Hopefully if the justices don't already wish to investigate his birth, then this might encourage them to.
     
    Last edited:

    ryanmercer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    1,381
    38
    Speedway, IN
    From NBC’s Pete Williams
    When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.
    Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
    Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.
    Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.

    Full article at Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court - First Read - msnbc.com
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,907
    99
    FREEDONIA
    My post from 2 days ago

    On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).


    Link Here:

    https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...spiracy_-_forged_images_phony_photos_and.html


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU"]YouTube - Citizenship Issue on MSNBC[/ame]
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    I dislike Obama as much as anyone, but I can not see the Supreme Court granting cert on this, Berg's case was a dog's breakfast and the Pa.E.D. Judge made a well-reasoned dismissal. I do find it suspicious that Obama has not plastered the country with certified copies of his birth certificate, but I do not think there is any legal recourse at this point. His coyness leads me to believe there is something embarrassing there, what it is, I don't know.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I dislike Obama as much as anyone, but I can not see the Supreme Court granting cert on this, Berg's case was a dog's breakfast and the Pa.E.D. Judge made a well-reasoned dismissal. I do find it suspicious that Obama has not plastered the country with certified copies of his birth certificate, but I do not think there is any legal recourse at this point. His coyness leads me to believe there is something embarrassing there, what it is, I don't know.

    If I recall, the judge in PA ruled that Berg did not have standing to sue, which if I understand that term, means that he was unaffected personally by the possibility (I'm being nice here) that Obama was running for national office but was unqualified to do so on Constitutional grounds.
    To my way of thinking, EVERY American has standing on this matter, as this is (at the time) quite possibly the man who will be elected to run as the Democratic nominee.

    Still, I'd like to hear your reasoning why you think that the judge made "a well-reasoned dismissal" rather than at least hear the case.

    I also think that since it only takes four of the Justices to grant cert, I think it very likely they will do so. What they do with it after that, given the ruling on Heller, is anyone's guess.

    Blessings,
    B
     

    miguel

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Oct 24, 2008
    6,831
    113
    16T
    I dislike Obama as much as anyone, but I can not see the Supreme Court granting cert on this, Berg's case was a dog's breakfast and the Pa.E.D. Judge made a well-reasoned dismissal. I do find it suspicious that Obama has not plastered the country with certified copies of his birth certificate, but I do not think there is any legal recourse at this point. His coyness leads me to believe there is something embarrassing there, what it is, I don't know.

    Maybe it is something silly...like his birth name is Fred Smith, but when he moved to Asia with his stepfather, they Islamized his name to Barack Obama? Unlikely, but it would be funny.
     

    tyrajam

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 2, 2008
    554
    16
    Fishers
    This is an issue that I have followed, and I also think it odd that his Birth Certificate has never been shown. But the information that HAS been made available points to him being a natural born citizen. Of course, I would like the court to take a look at ALL of the information, and its up to them to decide if the whole issue is a dead horse.

    Maybe we need to do what Mexico does; they require a presidents parents and grandparents to be residents born in Mexico. But of course if we did that, we would be rascist:rolleyes:
     

    ryanmercer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    1,381
    38
    Speedway, IN
    Maybe it is something silly...like his birth name is Fred Smith, but when he moved to Asia with his stepfather, they Islamized his name to Barack Obama? Unlikely, but it would be funny.

    haha no he was Barack Obama in the U.S. and Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.

    Obama timeline has a semi-decent article on the questions behind where he was born.
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    If I recall, the judge in PA ruled that Berg did not have standing to sue, which if I understand that term, means that he was unaffected personally by the possibility (I'm being nice here) that Obama was running for national office but was unqualified to do so on Constitutional grounds.
    To my way of thinking, EVERY American has standing on this matter, as this is (at the time) quite possibly the man who will be elected to run as the Democratic nominee.

    Berg had several counts, some wrong headed, others just plain silly (the promissory estoppel count was a laugh riot). Standing wasn't the only basis for dismissing counts, some did not state a claim, others were based on statute which did not grant private causes of action. Every American has a concern, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have standing. Read the full decision then tell me why it isn't well reasoned. I'd be happy to reconsider. There were no state secretaries of state stepping forward to question Obama's eligibility. You want to make a difference, lobby for a law in Indiana that any candidate for President in the state must offer positive proof of his eligibility for the office. On what possible legal basis, not our preference, will the Supreme Court grant cert?
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Berg had several counts, some wrong headed, others just plain silly (the promissory estoppel count was a laugh riot). Standing wasn't the only basis for dismissing counts, some did not state a claim, others were based on statute which did not grant private causes of action. Every American has a concern, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have standing. Read the full decision then tell me why it isn't well reasoned. I'd be happy to reconsider. There were no state secretaries of state stepping forward to question Obama's eligibility. You want to make a difference, lobby for a law in Indiana that any candidate for President in the state must offer positive proof of his eligibility for the office. On what possible legal basis, not our preference, will the Supreme Court grant cert?
    It will be this weekend before I have time to sit down and try to wrap my head around a legal decision with any level of understanding, however, if I remember to do so, I will.
    In the meantime, to answer your last question... Perhaps the same legal basis that cert was granted to Mr. Gore when he sued to have votes counted and re-counted and re-re-counted. The question has been raised on many points as to Mr. Obama's status as a natural-born citizen. This addresses a Constitutional question, and to determine if in fact, he is or is not eligible to serve and to sign bills into law, issue executive orders, and in general function in the office of and with the authority of the President of the United States would seem to be very clearly an issue for the Supreme Court to hear, address, and decide.

    Thanks for your reply.

    Blessings,
    B
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,907
    99
    FREEDONIA
    Berg had several counts, some wrong headed, others just plain silly (the promissory estoppel count was a laugh riot). Standing wasn't the only basis for dismissing counts, some did not state a claim, others were based on statute which did not grant private causes of action. Every American has a concern, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have standing. Read the full decision then tell me why it isn't well reasoned. I'd be happy to reconsider. There were no state secretaries of state stepping forward to question Obama's eligibility. You want to make a difference, lobby for a law in Indiana that any candidate for President in the state must offer positive proof of his eligibility for the office. On what possible legal basis, not our preference, will the Supreme Court grant cert?

    Well Counselor, is Berg inept or is this legal action calculated to fail ?
     

    flagtag

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    3,330
    38
    Westville, IL
    Well Counselor, is Berg inept or is this legal action calculated to fail ?

    I think that someone other than Obama has something to gain by refusing to investigate the birth question. Deep, fat pockets? Promises? Threats?
    One would think that the current government and judicial personnel would want to have "proof positive". (As well as WE THE PEOPLE)

    Yes, WE THE PEOPLE, have a vested interest in this case. WE are the ones that would be ruled by Obama, et al. (His spokeswoman stated that Obama is ready to RULE from day one - not govern)
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    Well Counselor, is Berg inept or is this legal action calculated to fail ?
    Yes and yes. I think Berg is a publicity hound, that he is inept, and that he never really expected anything to come out of his suit except controversy. He's something of a perennial candidate in the Philadelphia area, and grandstanded after Bush v. Gore in 2000 by demanding that O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas be disbarred for failing to recuse themselves from the decision. (Just another reason that 4 Justices might not be particularly disposed to hear anything he has to say). He's considered somewhat of a wacko around Philly, and is not held in particularly high esteem. I think he's looking for a following.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 28, 2008
    1,590
    36
    Bloomington
    If he isn't natural born, he CAN'T be president. If he is in office, I imagine they could arrest him as an enemy combatant, but I imagine they'd be more tactful about it.

    I actually chuckled out loud.

    I do not mean to insult you Ryan, and I'd sure be glad if you were right, but that line of thinking is a pipe dream at best. The odds of any real legal inquiry are slim to none- possibly even worse. Furthermore, if any legitimate investigation was brought forward, it would surely be sabotaged. The idea of Obama being arrested as an enemy combatant is laughable. Again, I'd be super excited, and would buy you all the beer you could drink. I just don't want to see people with their hope up because it is not going to happen.

    Sorry to be so pessimistic, but in my opinion it is just realistic. Grasp whatever ray of hope you need to, but don't fool yourself.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 17, 2008
    3,121
    36
    NE Indiana
    I don't know, I think "that time" is coming soon.

    The British just arrested one of their MP's for possibly leaking classified/sensitive information to the public, and they did it by send nine (9) counter-terroism soldiers (what are they, cops or soldiers?) to his house. The other MPs (think Senators and Congressmen if you are unfamiliar with their system of government) are angry about not being told of the action ahead of time, and only a handful (four or five or so) such as the Prime Minister and heads of committees were told in advance.

    The MPs' biggest complaint seems to be that they are being "brought down to the level of the common man", if I remember the quote from the BBC story correctly, meaning that they, too, can be arrested for their alleged illegal actions.
     

    ryanmercer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    1,381
    38
    Speedway, IN
    I actually chuckled out loud.

    I do not mean to insult you Ryan, and I'd sure be glad if you were right, but that line of thinking is a pipe dream at best. The odds of any real legal inquiry are slim to none- possibly even worse. Furthermore, if any legitimate investigation was brought forward, it would surely be sabotaged. The idea of Obama being arrested as an enemy combatant is laughable. Again, I'd be super excited, and would buy you all the beer you could drink. I just don't want to see people with their hope up because it is not going to happen.

    Sorry to be so pessimistic, but in my opinion it is just realistic. Grasp whatever ray of hope you need to, but don't fool yourself.

    Oh my hopes aren't up at all, I imagine in the months we've been demanding a birth certificate, that hypothetically if he isn't legal that he's built a nice record trail to say he is.
     
    Top Bottom