« Gary Sinise:A man for all services ~ Thank you Gary For Supporting Our Troops | Main | Meeting of Electors ~ What No One Fainting? No "Yes We Can" Chants? »
December 16, 2008
The Nightmare Continues
Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a second challenge to the presidency of Barack Obama, announcing today it denied an application for a stay or an injunction in a case from Connecticut.
The case brought by Cort Wrotnowski had been distributed for review by the court and apparently was considered during a conference of the justices Friday.
As is its custom, the Supreme Court made no comment other than to post its decision.
There was also a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
Other news items on this:
Dr. Orly Taitz, the constitutional lawyer involved in the California Case brought by Alan Keyes, and the Lightfoot v Bowen case now under consideration for hearing by SCOTUS Justice Kennedy.
Taitz’ reaction to today’s news was “very concerned”. She’s filing another lawsuit on behalf of our military, petitioning the court on the basis that our military is put in an unlawful position taking orders from an imposter commander in chief.
Another bit of news:
The Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still pending and this is probably the reason why.
SCOTUS has not denied Donofrio's NJ case, only his request for a stay while they confer over the Wrotnowski, CT case, Dec. 12
source:
Investigating Obama
Article about the USSC cannot rule on any COLB case until the senate certifies the EC vote.
Perhaps the electoral must vote as directed in the following:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5
Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review if any should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Timing is everything… you maybe the only one able to raise an “objection”
Wild Thing's comment.........
The Wrotnowski case is still pending from what I can understand from reading about it several times, the application for “Stay” and “Injunction” are denied. Not sure if that leaves much hope or only a slight window of possibility.
Once Barack Hussein Obama takes the oath of office he has officially committed fraud and violated the Constitution. He will have knowingly violated it.
Up to now it has all been about Barack Hussein Obama. But since two of these cases have been denied by the SCOTUS since Nov. 4th. And others before Nov. 4th not forgetting there are still more cases out there and more coming in to the SCOTUS. I think the direction of this whole thing has changed.
Now imo it has become about the SCOTUS will they or won't they. Again imo respecting and following the Constitution overrides all else.
God save the Republic!
....Thank you Mark for the information.
Posted by Wild Thing at December 16, 2008 04:50 AM
Comments
They are suppose to follow the Constitution, they, Congress and President all swear before God to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. I guess that oath is for public consumption, only.
It certainly would not put a crimp in there daily schedule to at least look into the veracity of the charges, afterall, this is a serious violation of the Oath they supposedly take very seriously.
Oh well so much for idealism.
Posted by: Mark at December 16, 2008 10:15 AM
I think SCOTUS has already decided this is a can of worms that they want to just fade away.
If, at some point in the future, it is proven that Obama is not a natural born US citizen, the fall out will be far more serious and far reaching than if the court orders him now to produce the proof.
Posted by: TomR at December 16, 2008 11:17 AM
Seems pretty obvious they expect a horrific backlash when they take away freedom, there is no other reason to impose military rule over the nation.
Posted by: Jack at December 16, 2008 12:11 PM
SCOTUS cowardly shirked it's judicial responsibility in not taking this case forward. To make matters worse, they didn't provide any legal guidance as to how the public's interest is constitutionally and judicially protected from an illegitimate president running the country.
Posted by: Les at December 16, 2008 03:20 PM
Mark,I feel the exact same way.
"They are suppose to follow the Constitution, they, Congress and President all swear before God to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. I guess that oath is for public consumption, only."
I don't get it either, why can't they just read it, look at.
Posted by: Wild Thing at December 16, 2008 06:43 PM
Tom I agree too. Iit would be ugly now for sure, but nothing compared to how ugly the fallout would be later on.
Posted by: Wild Thing at December 16, 2008 06:52 PM
Jack, yes, meanwhile they take away truth and honor and what our Founding fathers wanted for our country. So sad.
Posted by: Wild Thing at December 16, 2008 06:55 PM
Les, that too, I agree. I wish so much that people would just be people and not ride on a high horse when they get certain positions in life. Like being one of these Judges, I guess it would be too much to ask for one of them to say even in an interview or something, the why of their reasoning not to look at these lawsuits.
Posted by: Wild Thing at December 16, 2008 06:58 PM
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II "natural born citizen" based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a "citizen" born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II "natural born citizen".
Posted by: Ted at December 16, 2008 09:10 PM
Ted that is very interesting and a good idea too. I know if I worked in that situation I would want to know those answers before I went along with things told to do from Obama.
Posted by: Wild Thing at December 16, 2008 11:47 PM
