Category Archives: Supreme Court

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

Posted on October 1, 2013 | 77 comments

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”…Eric Holder’s US Justice Dept lawsuit against NC

“‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’”

“The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own”… Chief Justice Roberts, Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al 

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

The corrupt Obama US Justice Dept. led by Obama’s pal Eric Holder is sueing the state of NC over its recent changes to the voter laws.

First of all I would like to thank Eric Holder for helping to highlight the impact of the Obama Administration on blacks in NC.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”

Eric Holder claims that the new NC voting law changes are discriminatory.

“Provisions of HB 589
23. HB 589 makes several significant changes to North Carolina’s election law. Among other changes, HB 589 alters existing law by reducing the number of early voting days available to voters, eliminating same-day voter registration during the early voting period, and prohibiting the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who attempt to vote in their county, but outside their home precinct. HB 589 also imposes a new photo identification requirement for in-person voters.
”

“the discriminatory impact of photo identification requirements on minority voters, and the challenges people encounter in obtaining the underlying documentation needed to acquire the types of photo identification that would be required by the proposed law.”

“Implementation of HB 589 Will Have a Discriminatory Result”

“The reduction of the number of days of early voting and elimination of the first seven days of early voting, including the first weekend days of early voting, will have a discriminatory impact on African-American voters in North Carolina.”

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/646201393013723793555.pdf

Legal definition of discrimination.
“In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

The NC voting laws are clearly not discriminatory. They apply equally to all citizens.

A fifth grader can understand that.

From Gateway Pundit September 30, 2013.

“So, will Holder sue the majority of US States?

  • 14 states allow straight party voting. North Carolina now joins the 36 other states that do not.
  • 15 states allow NO early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. (Those include NY and Mass)
  • 32 states allow early voting ranging from 4 days prior to election day to 45 days with an average 19 days. North Carolina allows 10 days but requires the same number of hours of early voting that was available in 2012 and 2010 when the early voting period was 17 days.
  • Only 1 state allows same day registration during early voting. NC was the only other state to allow this and has now joined 49 states in not allowing same day registration during early voting.
  • 11 states allow same day registration on Election Day. North Carolina does not.
  • 5 states allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre-register to vote. 45 states do not, including now, North Carolina.

Illinois and Delaware require voter ID. Hawaii has even stricter voter ID requirements. Why is Holder not suing those states?”

Read more:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/hyper-partisan-obama-doj-to-announce-suit-against-north-carolina-voting-laws/

FURTHERMORE

Even though the recent US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al addressed the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the constitutional provisions giving the states most of election powers.

“Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10. This “allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___
(2011) (slip op., at 9). But the federal balance “is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
More specifically, “‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462 (1991) (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 647 (1973); some internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; see also Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., ante, at 4–6. But States have “broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizona, ante, at 13–15. And “[e]ach State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.” Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, 161 (1892). Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Perry v. Perez, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960); Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725–726 (1869); emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 567 (1911). Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Id., at
580. Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U. S., at 328–329. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U. S., at 203.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a §2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request,longer if he requests more information. See 28 CFR §§51.9, 51.37. If a State seeks preclearance from a three judge court, the process can take years.
And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process. Even if a non covered jurisdiction is sued, there are important differences between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the preclearance proceeding “not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation.” 679 F. 3d, at 884 (Williams, J., dissenting) (case below).
All this explains why, when we first upheld the Act in 1966, we described it as “stringent” and “potent.” Katzen
bach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. We recognized that it“may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.” Id., at 334. We have since noted that the Act “authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policy making,” Lopez, 525 U. S., at 282, and represents an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government,” Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 500–501 (1992). As we reiterated in Northwest Austin, the Act constitutes “extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system.” 557 U. S., at 211.”
Is this just another Obama administration race baiting move or retribution for NC rejecting Obama and the Democrat Party in 2012?
What a bunch of morons.
In their zeal to attack the state of NC they reveal the plight of blacks under Obama.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”
Thanks to commenter Jonah.

77 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Eric Holder, Founding Fathers, NC, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

Posted on May 27, 2013 | 78 comments

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

Obama’s eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen of the US is being challenged in 2 state supreme courts.

In Vermont, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, H. Brooke Paige has challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status due to his father being Kenyan/British.

In Alabama, perhaps the most conservative state in the US, Virgil Goode and Hugh McInnish have challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status since no evidence of US birth has been presented. Mike Zullo of the Arpaio investigation has submitted a lengthy affidavit regarding the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov and other records.

We expect a fair proceeding in the AL Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Roy Moore, is a strong proponent of adhering to the US Constitution and has spoken of the lack of evidence for Obama being eligible.

From Citizen Wells April 1, 2013.

From Attorney Larry Klayman April 2013.

“Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court”

“Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for office.”
 

“Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.”

“Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

 
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
 
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
 
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
 
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.”
 

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/obama-eligibility-appeal-filed-in-judge-roy-moores-alabama-supreme-court-attorney-larry-klayman-secretary-of-state-beth-chapman-failed-to-verify-moore-expressed-doubts-about-obama/

What may surprise you is the hearing that H. Brooke Paige received before the VT Supreme Court on April 23, 2013.

Despite the best efforts of Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz to obfuscate by distorting VT statutes and election responsibilites and Mr. Paige’s standing, some of the justices presented intelligent questions and statements.

I have had several email exchanges and a lengthy phone conversation with H. Brooke Paige. This quote says much:

“Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

Here is a segment of exchanges between Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz and the supreme court justices.

78 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Hawaii, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Standing, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , , , ,

Yes Florida there is a sanity clause, Judges may be removed from office by impeachment, Judicial qualifications commission, Judge Kevin Carroll removal, Leon County circuit court

Posted on December 23, 2012 | 81 comments

Yes Florida there is a sanity clause, Judges may be removed from office by impeachment, Judicial qualifications commission, Judge Kevin Carroll removal, Leon County circuit court

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

Judge Kevin Carroll, a Leon County Florida Circuit Court Judge, recently dismissed an Obama eligibility case. Judge Carroll made reference to a fictional ruling on Santa Clause in the movie “Miracle on 34th Street.”

I have a Sanity Clause ruling for Judge Carroll.

Removal from office.

In Florida there are 2 ways to remove a judge:

1. On the recommendation of the judicial qualifications commission, the supreme court may discipline, retire, or remove a judge.

2. Judges may be impeached by a two-thirds vote of the house of representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote of the senate.

From WND December 22, 2012.

“ELIGIBILITY JUDGE QUOTES FAMOUS SANTA CASE
Cites paraphrased decision in ‘Miracle on 34th Street’ in Florida Democrat’s challenge”

“A real-life Florida judge has paraphrased a statement from the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper in “Miracle on 34th Street” to justify his sudden decision to dismiss a challenge under state law to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

The ruling from Kevin Carroll of the Florida circuit court for Leon County dismissed the case brought on behalf of Democratic voter Michael C. Voeltz, who raised the issue of Obama’s qualifications under a state law that allows voters to challenge candidates’ eligibility.

Carroll, who had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case, changed his mind and abruptly Thursday ordered the case dismissed.

He explained that the fact the government says Obama is qualified to be president is more than enough for him.

“This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world,” Carroll wrote.

“As this matter has come before the court at this time of the year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States Government declares this man to be president, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.’”

It was the second time in eligibility cases that a judge appears to have abandoned legal fundamentals and simply ruled for Obama on no particular basis.

Several years ago it was Judge James Robertson in Washington who dismissed a case because, he wrote, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency.”

Carroll’s ruling also did not address the fact that in the movie, the judge was determining that a resident of a nursing home hired to play Santa Claus at a Macy’s store was, in fact, Santa Claus. His ‘proof” was a pile of mail addressed to Santa Claus that the post office delivered to him, confirming his identity.

Attorney Larry Klayman, representing Voeltz in the case, immediately responded with a motion for rehearing, contending that the judge “prematurely and precipitously” dismissed the complaint without a hearing as outlined under state law.

“This act also flies in the face of this court’s own order of Dec. 13, 2012, which was law of the case,” noted Klayman, founder of FreedomWatchUSA.

“This court had a statutory duty under the Florida Election laws, the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and 3 U.S.C. Section 5, to adjudicate defendant Obama’s eligibility and his alleged fraudulent acts expeditiously, timely, and before the electors met on Dec. 17, 2012, and before the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2013, Klayman explained. “Thus, this court also violated these law is dismissing the complaint summarily.”

Klayman suggested to the court its order “at a minimum creates an appearance that it simply jettisoned this case not only on the extrajudicial and non-legal premise that President Obama was president during the prior four year term, and has already performed many ‘presidential’ acts but also because this court did not want to be ‘inconvenienced’ by holding an evidentiary hearing.”

Klayman also questioned Carroll’s “off-the-cuff” remarks about a friend being appointed to a federal post by Obama as inappropriate.

He said the remarks about fictional judge Henry X. Harper in “Miracle on 34th St.” also were “inappropriate” and showed “a mindset simply to rid the court of this case.”

“This court seems to want to sidestep having to reach these serious and important matters before it,” Klayman said.

Klayman is seeking a rehearing and an evidentiary hearing in the dispute. He’s also seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the delivery of the Florida electoral votes to Obama until the court case is resolved.

He has submitted evidence by way of a sworn statement from Investigator Mike Zullo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona that there probably were two crimes committed in the creation and display of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, which was released by the White House and posted online.

Zullo’s testimony is that forgery was used to create the document, and fraud was used in “presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represents as “proof positive” of President Obama’s” birth documentation.

Arpaio’s affidavit also was presented to the judge.

The sheriff said: “My investigators and I believe that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. … There is probable cause that the document is a forgery.”

Klayman has argued that Obama “has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States … the only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of a belatedly filed electronic version of a claimed long-form birth certificate posted on the Internet.”

He told the judge that the evidence suggests, however, the document is fraudulent.

The case claims that should the judge not address the facts, the plaintiff “can never be made whole again.”

“If defendant Obama is found to be ineligible, which is likely to happen since there is no evidence … Obama was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, the plaintiff’s vote in the 2012 presidential election will be nullified.”

He suggested state law calls for an expedited hearing in such cases.

Carroll, however, said the state of Florida does not have jurisdiction to “determine the issue of qualification for the office of president of the United States, particularly at this late date in the process.”

His comments came after another challenge filed by Voeltz earlier this year was dismissed because the judge ruled it couldn’t be addressed until after the election.”

“Klayman said he also will be trying to go directly to the Florida Supreme Court if Carroll does not reconsider.

“It’s truly ‘remarkable’ and an affront to the rule of law and all our founding fathers and colonial America fought and risked and gave their lives for. This type of conduct by the establishment, which thinks it can do as it pleases without consequences, is why we have entered into a revolutionary state 236 years after we declared independence from the king. They will soon from We the People learn that there are consequences,” he said.

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eligibility-judge-quotes-famous-santa-case/#HSid5ipo2b70BbeE.99

Judge Kevin Carroll is either biased, incompetent or insane or some combination and should be removed.

Florida’s Sanity Clause.

Florida House of Representatives.

“The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, members of the Cabinet, justices of the Supreme Court, and judges may be removed from office by impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach. It may do so by a two-thirds vote of the members voting. The Senate tries all impeachments, with the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court presiding. A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to convict. If convicted, the officer is removed from office.”

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/glossary/glossary.aspx?Filter=I

Florida 2011 Court Reform.

“What the Joint Resolution Does:

House Joint Resolution 7111 proposes a Constitutional Amendment to
address reforms to Florida’s court system. The Joint Resolution passed the
Florida House with a vote of 80-38 on May 3, 2011, and later passed the
Senate with a vote of 24-11 on May 5, 2011. Among other things, the Joint
Resolution:”

“As the body responsible for judicial impeachment proceedings,
grants the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, at his
or her request, access to the complaint files of the Judicial
Qualifications Commission at any time. The bill requires the
complaint files be kept confidential until the information is used in
the pursuit of impeachment.”

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Handlers/LeagisDocumentRetriever.ashx?Leaf=housecontent/opi/Lists/Announcements/Attachments/35/OPI%20Pulse%20-%20Court%20Reform%205-23-11.pdf&Area=House

Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.

“CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
For the State of Florida
Online Version

Reports of misconduct by judges must be made to the Judicial Qualifications Commission at (850) 488-1581.

Print the Entire Code of Judicial Conduct in PDF.

The opinions of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
are available on the Sixth Judicial Circuit Website.
Visit the web site to search the opinions.

Preamble

Definitions

Canon 1. A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge’s Activities

Canon 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

Canon 4. A Judge Is Encouraged to Engage in Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice

Canon 5. A Judge Shall Regulate Extrajudicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict With Judicial Duties

Canon 6. Fiscal Matters of a Judge Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance of Influence or Impropriety; etc.

Canon 7. A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall Refrain From Inappropriate Political Activity”

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/ethics/index.shtml

Mission of the Florida Judicial Branch.

“The mission of the judicial branch is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and provide for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Vision of the Florida Judicial Branch
Justice in Florida will be accessible, fair, effective, responsive, and accountable.

To be accessible, the Florida justice system will be convenient, understandable, timely, and affordable to everyone.

To be fair, it will respect the dignity of every person, regardless of race, class, gender or other characteristic, apply the law appropriately to the circumstances of individual cases, and include judges and court staff that reflect the community’s diversity.

To be effective, it will uphold the law and apply rules and procedures consistently and in a timely manner, resolve cases with finality, and provide enforceable decisions.

To be responsive, it will anticipate and respond to the needs of all members of society, and provide a variety of dispute resolution methods.

To be accountable, the Florida justice system will use public resources efficiently, and in a way that the public can understand.”

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/mi_vi/index.shtml

Procedures for filing a complaint.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc.shtml

Judge Kevin Carroll Ruling.

Click to access 12CA3857.pdf

81 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Florida, Judges, Justice, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Chief Justice Roberts decision that of Washington Insider, John Roberts in DC too long, John Hammer Rhino Times, Greensboro Obamacare truth in print

Posted on July 5, 2012 | 140 comments

Chief Justice Roberts decision that of Washington Insider, John Roberts in DC too long, John Hammer Rhino Times, Greensboro Obamacare truth in print

“Nobody who makes under $200,000 a year will see their taxes go up as long as I’m president.”…Barack Obama

“I absolutely reject that notion [mandate is a tax].”…Barack Obama

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times, in print in Greensboro, NC, July 5, 2012.

“Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts threw everybody for a loop last week.

Both Fox and CNN reported on the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare wrong the first time around. Which is understandable because days later pundits are still trying to make sense of what happened.

One of my favorite pieces so far is by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, who, of course, praises Roberts for putting his country above partisan politics by using creativity and “finding a way to greenlight Obama’s Affordable Care Act.”

Friedman credits Roberts with putting partisan politics aside and doing what was best for the country. It is such an arrogant, closed-minded liberal world view it would be funny if it weren’t such a serious issue. Shoot, it is funny. According to Friedman the liberal view is what is best for the country. This is a fact. So Roberts is to be congratulated for putting his conservative ideals, which are by definition bad for the country, aside and figuring out a way to twist the law into a pretzel that says Obamacare is constitutional. To believe Friedman you have to accept his premise that what conservatives believe is not and cannot be good for the country, and when conservatives can put aside their own beliefs they can sometimes manage to work for the good of the country. You either have to laugh or cry. I choose laughing.

Here’s an explanation I haven’t read anywhere, but it seems possible. The problem is that Roberts has spent too much time in Washington. People talk about getting inside-the-Beltway syndrome, and maybe Roberts has been in Washington for so long he believes that the extreme left-wing views that dominate Washington are the norm for the nation. Or he doesn’t believe it, but like living in a town with a paper mill, after a while you think stench is normal. It’s tough for conservatives living in Washington because it doesn’t matter how big a majority the Republicans have in Congress, in Washington conservatives are a tiny minority of the population that usually dash to Capital Hill and then back to Reagan National Airport and somewhere more normal.

Maybe Roberts has been in Washington so long, he believes that the opinions you hear in restaurants, coffee shops and on the metro are the norm. Of course, it’s hard to imagine Roberts in a coffee shop or on the metro, but it could happen.

Look at President George Walker Bush. He was convinced that people wouldn’t be that upset about a tax increase. It’s hard for a president to get out and mingle, but he should have been told that the rest of the country didn’t like the idea of a tax increase from a president who had been in every corner of the country saying, “read my lips, no new taxes.” In Washington, it was considered par for the course. There are politicians everywhere in Washington and nobody except someone straight in from the countryside believes anything they say. The voters in Washington elected Marion Barry after he had been convicted of possession of cocaine. It’s a different world.

On the good side of the Roberts’ judicial reasoning is that it has now been established without a doubt that Obamacare is being paid for with a tax. It is also definitely a tax on the middle class, and President Barack Hussein Obama has promised over and over he would not raise taxes on the middle class. According to some estimates this represents by far the largest tax increase in history and will result in over $1 trillion in new taxes.

Imagine how much more power it gives to the federal government to take an additional $1 trillion out of the private economy and decide where and how it will be spent.

The other parts of the ruling really are good news. Finally there is some check on the federal government forcing the states to do whatever it wants by withholding funds. The federal government might have to use reason or compromise in the future. One state legislator has told me that North Carolina won’t be able to afford the new Medicaid provisions, and North Carolina is not alone.

One of the most interesting articles to come out of the Supreme Court decision is by Jan Crawford of CBS News, who evidently has great sources inside the Supreme Court. She reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy was relentless in his pursuit of Roberts, attempting to get Roberts back in the conservative fold.

Those on the outside had figured that Kennedy would be the conservative judge to vote with the liberals, but according to this report, which seems to be generally accepted as true, Kennedy was the one who wouldn’t accept the fact that Roberts had changed sides.

Here is another theory about Roberts. This was his one attempt at being a wild and crazy guy. Some men have a midlife crisis and go after younger women and some buy a red convertible. Perhaps some very conservative chief justices of the Supreme Court who, from reading their bios, never really did anything fun in their lives, decide to try something “Crazy, man, crazy” and vote with the liberals on a big case.

Human beings are very strange creatures and anything is possible.”

Read more:

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-07-03-212390.112113-Under-the-Hammer.html

140 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Government, Health Insurance, Healthcare bill, John Roberts, Judges, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, Rhino Times, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington DC

Tagged , , ,

US Supreme Court declares Obama a liar, Obamacare is a tax, Obama lied about tax increases, Obama fraud and taxes have devastated economy and job market

Posted on June 28, 2012 | 74 comments

US Supreme Court declares Obama a liar, Obamacare is a tax, Obama lied about tax increases, Obama fraud and taxes have devastated economy and job market

“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”…2001 Obama interview on Chicago public radio .

“I absolutely reject that notion [mandate is a tax].”…Barack Obama

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

All you need to know about Obama to understand what makes him tick is the following. Obama is a :

Narcissist.

Socialist.

Liar.

When Obama first began trying to force his socialist healthcare agenda upon us, it was clear that he was imposing another tax.

From The Blaze June 28, 2012.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/flashback-video-absolutely-reject-that-notion-obama-hhs-sec-budget-director-all-say-mandate-not-a-tax/

The US Supreme Court today, June 28, 2012, in their ruling today effectively called Obama a liar.

From Rush Limbaugh June 28, 2012.

“RUSH: Hey, folks, have you seen the economic news today? Have you heard about the unemployment numbers today? (laughing) Gross domestic product, have you heard about any of that? Because I have it here, and it sucks. It’s a disaster. The economy of this country remains a disaster. And we, the American people, have just been deceived in ways that nobody contemplated. And what we now have is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. What we have been told by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and four liberals on the court: Obamacare is just a massive tax increase. That’s all it is. Obama lied to us about that. The Democrats lied. “It wasn’t a tax. There was no way it was a tax.”

The chief justice was hell-bent to find a way to make this law applicable, so he just decided, you know what, as a tax increase, it works, because there’s no limit on the federal government’s ability to tax. And it’s right there in the preamble of the Constitution, right there, Article 1, Section 8, the general welfare clause, it’s been established Congress can tax whatever, whoever, whenever, how much they want. Even when they don’t ask for it, the Supreme Court is gonna find a way to make what they want to do legal because John Roberts said it’s not our job here to forbid this. It’s not our job to protect people from outcomes. It’s not our job to determine whether it is right or wrong or any of that. We just get to look at it. We can’t forbid this. This is what the elected representatives of the people want.

No, the elected representatives of the people were deceived. Remember yesterday I asked you, if this decision went this way, what was your initial reaction going to be. And how many of you were deflated as you can be because of the way this was reported? The first thing that came down, the mandate, unconstitutional, that was the first thing everybody reported. Mandate unconstitutional, big sigh of relief. And then within moments, wait a minute, wait a minute, we’re reading further. Hold it just a second. The mandate’s unconstitutional, but the court has decided it’s a tax, and therefore it’s okay.

So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And the people who were characterizing it as such were right and were telling the truth. We have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world right in the middle of one of this country’s worst recessions. In fact, as the vice president said yesterday, a depression for millions of Americans. The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Not our job.

Well, what about when we are deceived? The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be. What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama’s domestic army. That is what we face now. We were deceived. Obamacare was a lie. It was a stealth tax on all Americans, and nobody knew it until today. Not officially. Obama told George Stephanopoulos it wasn’t a tax. And Stephanopoulos was trouble-making for trying to suggest otherwise.

Let’s go to the audio sound bites. September 20th, 2009, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, interviewing President Obama, discussion about the health care reform bill, Stephanopoulos said, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money and fining them if they don’t. How is that not a tax increase?”

OBAMA: No, tha-tha-that’s not true, George. Eh, for us to say that you’ve gotta take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is is that we’re not gonna have other people carrying your burdens for you, any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, “That is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.”

RUSH: Stephanopoulos then said, “Well, it may be fair, and it may be good public policy, but for you to say that this isn’t a tax. This just…”

OBAMA: No, no. B-b-but George y-y-y-you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “Tax: A charge, usually of money, imposed by authority —

OBAMA: (snickering)

STEPHANOPOULOS: — on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Miriam’s dictionary (sic), the definition of tax increase indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise you wouldn’ta gone to the dictionary to check on the definition! I mean —

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no.

OBAMA: If — if what you’re saying is —

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself, but your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything’s a tax increase! My critics say that I’m taking over, uhh, every sector of the economy. You know that! Uh, eh, eh… Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re gonna have an individual mandate or not but —

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/28/the_court_rules_obamacare_is_the_largest_tax_increase_in_the_history_of_the_world

Some are fretting about this decision and the role Chief Justice Roberts played. I am not. Obama, et al have shot themselves in the foot and it is a near certainty that Obamacare will be repealed.

It is Obama’s tax and spend policies that have destroyed the economy and job market.

Now we have the US Supreme Court calling Obamacare what it is.

A big tax increase.

Thanks to commenter Starla, et al.

74 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Economy, Election 2012, Employment, Government, Health Insurance, Healthcare bill, Judges, Lies, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, ObamaCare, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Supreme Court upholds key Arizona immigration law provision, Remainder struck down, State and local police can still check immigration status

Posted on June 25, 2012 | 70 comments

Supreme Court upholds key Arizona immigration law provision, Remainder struck down, State and local police can still check immigration status

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

 

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

From Conservative Byte June 25, 2012.

“BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down 3 of 4 Parts of Arizona Immigration Law”

“The Supreme Court has struck down most of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld a key provision.

The provision that was upheld requires state and local police officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.

Other provisions, though, were struck down.”

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/06/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-3-of-4-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law/

Supreme Court Decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

70 Comments

Posted in Arizona, Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil rights, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, US Constitution

Tagged , ,

Charlotte Observer Obama facts, Obama hides Birth certificate college and other records, Taxpayer dollars aid in Obama deception, Sheriffs Arpaio and Pendergraph question Obama

Posted on May 7, 2012 | 155 comments

Charlotte Observer Obama facts, Obama hides Birth certificate college and other records, Taxpayer dollars aid in Obama deception, Sheriffs Arpaio and
Pendergraph question Obama

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“Pendergraph’s long experience as a public servant, especially his 12 years as Mecklenburg County sheriff, would be an asset. He understands the value of service to constituents and responding quickly and efficiently to their cares and concerns.”…Charlotte Observer

Since the Charlotte Observer endorsed Jim Pendergraph, rescinded the endorsement when Pendergraph questioned Obama’s birthplace and attacked Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff JOe Arpaio for simply doing their job and asking simple questions, I feel it is my duty as a natural born citizen of the United States, eligible for the US Presidency and a native born citizen of North Carolina and resident of NC, to do the job that the Charlotte Observer and most members of the mainstream media have failed to do. That is, explain to you why Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have questions and concerns about Obama’s birthplace, birth certificate, eligibility for the presidency and other records.

I am going to make this so simple that anyone can follow it.

01. First and very important. Barack Obama, unlike John McCain, has never presented a legitimate long form certified copy of his birth certificate. This
includes the numerous court challenges to Obama.

02. Various entities placed images of a COLB (Certification of Live Birth) on the internet purported to be Obama’s but never proven to have originated from
the State of Hawaii. Even if Obama had personally presented one of these in court, it would have been thrown out as conclusive proof of Hawaiian birth. There were 4 ways of getting one of these when Obama was born and one could be born abroad.

03. Numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have been made in court beginning in 2008. These challenges have demanded proof of Obama’s eligibility and most have requested legitimate copies of Obama’s birth certificate, college and other records. None of these challenges has been pled before higher courts
or the Supreme Court of the US.

04. Irrespective of where Obama was born, per the accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen when the US Constitution was written, Obama is not eligible
because he did not have 2 US citizen parents.

05. Obama has employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting documents and proof of eligibility.

06. In 2008 Obama employed Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie and other private attorneys to assist him in keeping his records hidden. Obama hired Robert Bauer as White House counsel in 2009.

07. Since taking the White House, Obama has used numerous US Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to assist him in keeping his records hidden.

08. Recently Obama has employed private attorneys to assist him in eligibility challenges. Remember, in 2008 when John McCain was challenged on his
eligibilty, he promptly presented a legitimate birth certificate.

09. Tim Adams, an election official who worked in the elections office in Hawaii in 2008 signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for
Barack Obama in HI in 2008.

10. The new Governor Of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, soon after taking office, stated that he could find no birth certificate for Obama.

11. In April 2011, an image purporting to be the long form birth certificate for Barack Obama was placed on WhiteHouse.com. Most experts immediately
determined that it was a clear fraud. All one has to do to dismiss this image as evidence is to read the bottom of the image:

“I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of health.” Alvin T. Onaki, Ph.D.

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.”

Or abstract disqualifies it.

12. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, at the request of hundreds of his constituents, assembled a cold case posse, at no cost to taxpayers and performed a professional investigation, seeking the truth about Obama’s birth certificate and other records. The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov was determined to be a forgery and Obama’s selective service application is believed to be a forgery as well. Sheriff Arpaio is currently attempting to get the Selective Service Administration to cooperate.

13. Documented and reported here, Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application. Obama omitted his other names and his numerous parking tickets that he later paid when running for president.

The above are just the highlights, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Any rational, concerned, believer in the US Constitution and rule of law would have doubts about Barack Obama by being aware of these facts.

How many of these facts were reported by the Charlotte Observer?

The damning information about Obama may be in his college records and Selective Service Records.

155 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Charlotte, Charlotte Observer, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Lies, Natural born citizen, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

Posted on May 2, 2012 | 44 comments

Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison

From Bret Baier of Fox News May 1, 2012.

“I posted this quickly as a response to all of the emails I was receiving about Senator Marco Rubio and whether he is a “Natural Born Citizen (the same emails comment about Gov. Bobby Jindal). I noted in the blog- there is a lot of dispute about the legal term and what the Founding Fathers truly meant. What I did not put in the blog -was that a large part of this was originally reported by Byron York of the Washington Examiner. I asked him to send me his reporting a few weeks ago – and I should have cited that in the blog this morning… I apologize to Byron for leaving that out. Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it.. and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

The inaccurate  report by Bret Baier on Natural Born Citizen from yesterday at Citizen Wells.

““Bret explains “natural born citizen” requirements for president and vice president”

“Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take– and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father’s nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate — has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a “natural born citizen,” but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14.

They’re all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You’re a natural born U.S. citizen.

That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)… — to your emails… Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

Bret Baier is correct about one thing, the US Supreme Court needs to clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

The article starts out with some accuracy “Many legal analysts and scholars.”

This is true, there is much disagreement and debate.

However, the article ends “That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement”, implying a consensus.

Without getting into all the subtle intricacies of law and legal precedent, I will make this simple.

First, the framers of the constitution provided some clarity with this provision:

“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;”

A distinction is made between citizen and natural born citizen. Also, this allowed the founder fathers to be eligible and also children born from the time of independence to the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/bret-baier-fox-news-natural-born-citizen-error-fox-motivation-for-media-line-have-obama-thugs-threatened-fox-supreme-court-must-clarify/

44 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Fox news, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Bret Baier Fox News Natural Born Citizen error, Fox motivation for media line?, Have Obama thugs threatened Fox?, Supreme Court must clarify

Posted on May 1, 2012 | 82 comments

Bret Baier Fox News Natural Born Citizen error, Fox motivation for media line?, Have Obama thugs threatened Fox?, Supreme Court must clarify

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”…Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Bret Baier provided the following statements on the presidential requirement of Natural Born Citizen on Fox News May 1, 2012.

“Bret explains “natural born citizen” requirements for president and vice president”

“Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take– and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father’s nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate — has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a “natural born citizen,” but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14.

They’re all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You’re a natural born U.S. citizen.

That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)… — to your emails… Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

Bret Baier is correct about one thing, the US Supreme Court needs to clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

The article starts out with some accuracy “Many legal analysts and scholars.”

This is true, there is much disagreement and debate.

However, the article ends “That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement”, implying a consensus.

Without getting into all the subtle intricacies of law and legal precedent, I will make this simple.

First, the framers of the constitution provided some clarity with this provision:

“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;”

A distinction is made between citizen and natural born citizen. Also, this allowed the founder fathers to be eligible and also children born from the time of independence to the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

82 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC

Tagged , , ,

Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial

Posted on April 27, 2012 | 47 comments

Natural Born Citizen must be defined by courts, US District Judge S. Thomas Anderson, Obama eligibility case, Qualification for presidency important not trivial

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”…Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From WND April 26, 2012.

“JUDGE WANTS DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'”

“A federal judge has determined in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for a state ballot that the meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” is “important and not trivial.”

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Irion told supporters, “While it is certainly dangerous to read too much into such an opinion, the statements from this federal court are encouraging. The court appears to understand the most critical issues presented by our complaint.”

He told WND that the issue identified by Anderson is what virtually all of the dozens of cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have been seeking: a ruling on accusations that Obama is unqualified.

Previously, cases have been dismissed based on standing or other technicalities, not on the merits.

The decision from Anderson came in a case brought by Irion on behalf of voters and political candidates in Tennessee. The plaintiffs argue Obama’s name cannot be submitted because he is ineligible.

The defendants had moved the case from state court, where Irion wanted to argue the state issues, to federal court, where Obama virtually has batted a thousand in preventing cases from reaching the point at which the merits are assessed.

Irion had submitted a motion to have the case returned to the state courts, a request Anderson denied.

But Irion was heartened by the comments from the judge, who said that without a determination on the questions facing the court, there easily could be differing results in court jurisdictions around the nation.

“There is a risk of inconsistent adjudications on the federal issue presented,” the judge said.

Irion also had raised questions about “Obama’s dual citizenship” and allegations that his Social Security number is fraudulent.

“The court construes these allegations about President Obama … as corroboration of plaintiffs’ main allegation that President Obama is not a natural born citizen or otherwise qualified to be president,” the judge wrote.

Anderson’s opinion included a notation that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

“It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of president Obama’s birth, the president is a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law,” he wrote.

The case is developing just as a new petition urges members of Congress to take the issue seriously by investigating it. The number of names on the document has surged past 40,000 and soon will be approaching 50,000.

WND reported just a day ago that members of Congress, regarding Obama’s eligibility, still are relying on statements from Hawaii officials, “vetting” by voters and his own word.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., for example has said. “I will continue to take the president at his word that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”

Obama released an image of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, after years of stating that the document was not available. But at that time, the Hawaii Department of Health and governor’s office refused to confirm for WND that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s records.

However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigators have found probable cause that the document is a forgery. Others, meanwhile, argue that the document affirms Obama is not eligible, because it lists his father as a foreigner. The Founders, they argue, understood “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two American citizens.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/judge-wants-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/

More on Natural Born Citizen from Citizen Wells December 28, 2008.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/natural-born-citizen-obama-is-not-eligible-obama-birth-certificate-us-constitution-founding-fathers-intent-lawsuits-obama-kenyan-vattel%E2%80%99s-the-law-of-nations-john-jay-berg-donofrio-k/

Reprinted from Citizen Wells December 7, 2008.

Donofrio versus Wells is before all nine Justices of the US Supreme Court
and it is expected that they will decide by Monday morning, December 8,
2008 whether or not they will accept the case for a possible opinion or ruling.
The Leo Donofrio case is based on the natural born citizen provision of the
US Constitution and the failure of New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Wells to ensure
that Barack Obama is qualified under that provision. Having the US Supreme
Court give serious consideration to this case and uphold the US Constitution
is of utmost importance. However, this case demands attention to other
aspects of upholding the Constitution and clarifying duties that may in the
long term have more far reaching consequences. Here are three distinct
aspects of the Donofrio case that must be addressed and clarified by the
US Supreme Court Justices:

  • The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.
  • The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
    US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.
  • The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
    duty to uphold the US Constitution.

Not addressed specifically in the Donofrio lawsuit and therefore
not before the US Supreme Court, but a matter of much confusion,
is the statutes in some of the states and pledges by some
political parties to dictate how Electoral College Electors must
vote. This violates the letter and spirit of constitutional law
and the intent of the founding fathers to give carefully chosen
Electors the leeway to make wise choices.

Here is the basis in fact of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit:

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.”

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

HERE ARE THE THREE DISTINCT ASPECTS OF DONOFRIO’S LAWSUIT THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND CLARIFIED
BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

The Natural Born Citizen provision of the US Constitution as applicable to the 2008 election.

Leo Donofrio states:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.”

Read more from Leo Donofrio

The powers given to state officials in the election process and inherent duties to uphold the
US Constitution and Federal Election Laws.

There is much confusion and misunderstanding about the duties and powers of state officers and election
officials involved in presidential elections.

Read more here

The oath of office taken by federal and state officers, election officials and judges and the
duty to uphold the US Constitution.

From the opinion by Chief Justice Marshall on Marbury Vs Madison:


“The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

For the Justices of the US Supreme Court to disregard this important
lawsuit by Leo Donofrio, I am certain that all nine Justices would
violate their oath to uphold the US Constitution and duty to review,
consider and clarify the important principles outlined above. We are
accountable not only to uphold  the US Constitution and rule of law
in regard to the 2008 election, but the future integrity of the
Constitution, our system of checks and balances and stability of our
government. I strongly urge the Supreme Court Justices to help keep
our Constitution and government intact.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

47 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Courts, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Federal Court, Judges, Lawsuits, Marbury V Madison, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,