10-25-2008, 10:19 PM
Richard said: "[color="navy"]Why do you say that? There isnââ¬â¢t much more time left to do anything about it."[/color]
Well, here's my thoughts why listed below but... constitutional law and/or politics was NOT my major in college... so if anyone wants to argue what's below, I'm sorry, I probably can't do that without lots of research on my part... but here goes:
Here's my hope and I got it from a comment from here:
"On the surface, it appears what Judge Barclay Surrick has done is demonstrate unbridled hubris in basically saying that only a Congressional majority, in this case Congressional Democrats, have the authority and standing to challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States.
Under the standard written by Judge Surrick, quite literally, the Democratic Party, so long as they hold a majority in Congress, could nominate Osama bin Laden as a candidate, and so long as he receives enough electoral votes, he would become President of the United States, in spite of what the Constitution says.
Maybe this ruling isn't what it appears to be; maybe Surrick has a different agenda in this ruling.
All of you constitutional conservatives out there who are right now raging over this ruling ought to consider that perhaps what Surrick is doing here is floating a hanging curveball right into the wheelhouse of Antonin Scalia, who isn't only going to knock it out of the park, he is going to put it into the upper deck." October 25, 2008 12:36 PM
Well, here's my thoughts why listed below but... constitutional law and/or politics was NOT my major in college... so if anyone wants to argue what's below, I'm sorry, I probably can't do that without lots of research on my part... but here goes:
- Berg is appealing to the Supreme Court. Source for that info is here.
- Lawsuits have been filed in 8 states seeking to require Barrack Hussein Obama to provide certification of birth in US before presidential election. Source here.
- [size="2"]Tape of grandmother in Kenya still to be released. She says she was there when he was born in Kenya.[/size]
- [size="2"]The BC forgery arguments are persuasive. Source here.[/size]
- [size="2"]This photo here says "[/size]made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam." Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship meaning if this document is *correct* he renounced his American citizenship (?).
Here's my hope and I got it from a comment from here:
"On the surface, it appears what Judge Barclay Surrick has done is demonstrate unbridled hubris in basically saying that only a Congressional majority, in this case Congressional Democrats, have the authority and standing to challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States.
Under the standard written by Judge Surrick, quite literally, the Democratic Party, so long as they hold a majority in Congress, could nominate Osama bin Laden as a candidate, and so long as he receives enough electoral votes, he would become President of the United States, in spite of what the Constitution says.
Maybe this ruling isn't what it appears to be; maybe Surrick has a different agenda in this ruling.
All of you constitutional conservatives out there who are right now raging over this ruling ought to consider that perhaps what Surrick is doing here is floating a hanging curveball right into the wheelhouse of Antonin Scalia, who isn't only going to knock it out of the park, he is going to put it into the upper deck." October 25, 2008 12:36 PM