A way to stop Obama from taking office

maric

Short but deadly
Even more info at the link.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Obama Crimes
We have received a lot of emails from American citizens asking what they can do to be heard. . .
Thursday, 13 November 2008 23:36 Webmaster Main - News We have received a lot of emails from American citizens asking what they can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we cannot tell you to do anything, we can answer your questions and inform you what is available so you may be heard.

As citizens, you can individually write letters to each of the Court Justices addressing your concerns with respect to Mr. Obama's fulfillment of the requirements to serve as the President of the United States laid out in Article II, Section I of The United States Constitution.

United States Supreme Court
1 First Street NE
Washington DC 20543

The Supreme Court Justices are as follows:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Supreme Court Justice David Souter
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito

Thank you for your inquiries,

Obama Crimes Webmaster
 

fredkc

Retired Class Clown
We have received a lot of emails from American citizens asking what they can do to be heard regarding the issues pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately P. Berg seems to be learning impaired, and of the opinion that, if he can convince enough people to back his mistaken effort, it will come true.

If the people are going to write anyone, and get the matter of Obama's citizenship finally resolved, they need to be writing their Congressmen, and Senators. Because:
  • The Federal courts have decided FOUR TIMES!! that a citizen has no standing to bring forth such questions in Federal court.
  • Going to the Supreme Court and asking again won't change the answer.
  • Having a really good case, doesn't matter.
  • Being right doesn't matter.
Have a look at this:
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The "power" to bring such a suit, raise such a question has been delegated!

The job belongs to Congress! It has belonged to Congress since Article 2, Section 1.
Then re-affirmed in the 12th, and 20th amendments.
It only becomes a power a citizen may excercise if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It IS!

Some letter writing campaign to the Supreme Court is/will be as effective as a massive letter campaign to the weatherman, about the weather.

What needs doing is to make such noise at every Congressman and Senator's doorstep that they wouldn't DARE certify this election until they have seen proof of Obama's US citizenship, first hand.

It is their job!
 

Wadi66

Inactive
Alan Keyes seems to disagree

http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final...yes_v_bowen.pdf

Excerpt

Legal Basis

62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Senator Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.

64. SOS is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other things, verifying the qualifications of the voters, approving the ballots and the candidates, supervising the counting of the ballots, and certifying the results. This certification of the vote by SOS, based upon which Electors received the highest number of votes in the state, is the method provided for in California law for ascertaining which Electors are appointed to vote for president (California Elections Code § 15505, 3 U.S.C. § 6). On December 1, or as soon as soon as the election results have been received from all counties in the state, SOS shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors to the Governor, and then transmit to each presidential Elector a certificate of election (California Elections Code § 15505). The Governor then issues and seals a Certificate of Ascertainment which is delivered to the Electors by December 15 (3 U.S.C. § 6), who then meet to sign the Certificate of Vote (Federal Election Code § 192.006). The office of SOS is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and impartiality necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our elections.

65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.


There's more that you might want to read.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
Wadi, you're both saying mostly the same thing, just using different words.

House -- represents the people
Senate -- represents the state

House/Senate = Congress

SOS -- state representative and part of the Electoral process.

As I understand it, a Candidate would also have standing as they would have a loss/injustice.

The suit you link to was filed in the Superior Court not the Supreme Court.

The Electors for each state also have standing after the general election -- and this issue is one of the very purposes of the College.

I posted this previously in a related thread:

The people have the right, under the U.S. Constitution, to vote for U.S. Representatives. The 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) gave the people the right to vote for U.S. Senators (who were elected by state legislatures under the original Constitution).

The people, however, have no federal constitutional right to vote for President or Vice President or for their state’s members of the Electoral College.

Instead, the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 2) provides:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….”

As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker:

“The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors.” …

“In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”


In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore reiterated the principle that the people have no federal constitutional right to vote for President or Vice President or for their state’s members of the Electoral College..

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

The Constitution’s delegation of power to the states to choose the manner of selecting their members of the Electoral College is unusually unconstrained. It contrasts significantly with the limitations contained in the Constitution on state power over the manner of conducting congressional elections (Article II, section 4, clause 1).

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations….”

In a 1919 case involving a state statute entitled “An act granting to women the right to vote for presidential electors,” the Maine Supreme Judicial Court wrote (In re Opinion of the Justices):

“[E]ach state is thereby clothed with the absolute power to appoint electors in such manner as it may see fit, without any interference or control on the part of the federal government, except, of course, in case of attempted discrimination as to race, color, or previous condition of servitude….”

And this on the creation of the college:

http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

Here's two related threads (there's more if you do some searching) and one in the BS as well.

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=310407

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=310465

Those suits listing the SOS as a Defendant make sense to me, that should have happened before the election -- not sure how it will turn out since the election is over and there's no provisions for a new election.

However, since none were ruled on before the election, it makes sense that the Electors would now pick up the challenge.

If they fail then Congress (IIRC, it takes one member of each House to raise the challenge).

I do believe the Supreme Court should use some clear and enlightening language that would give a clear direction as to the proper direction for the eligibility concerns raised to be resolved.

This is like Constitutional roulette looking for a proper legal process that obviously exists as the Constitution provides for candidates to be ineligible -- tick tock!

BO happens to be a Constitutional attorney (anti-Constitutional, as the case may be) -- he's a lot of things but certainly not stupid, I'm sure he's got his defense/arguments already laid out on how to wiggle around the document that he considers fundamentally flawed.
 
Top