Isn`t it amazing how many closet doors Mr.Obamma has? One after another just keep opening.
Thats what I call “BEING ABOVE THE LAW”.Now we all know that Obamma has conned the world, and the government is to embarassed to face the fact that our security isn`t worth a damn,BUT, when it comes down to WHO PUT OBAMMA INTO OFFICE,there is no such thing as being above the law.The people that put him in, will take him out,and I don`t mean the voters.You must remember,Obamma comes from chicaco,and that should simply expain whats going to happaen to him.Ask the Kennedys, what happens to the ones that fu%% with the wrong people. I wonder why Ted Kenndy is keeping his mouth shout.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks for your patience Mata.

“They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.” (Mata)

This is the way I would do it:
I would just ask them if they or anybody else have ever seen Obama BC? They would have to say NO, since he has never presented it to no one yet. That is a proof: NO ONE SAW IT, not even the Court. And then, I would say that Constitution stipulate that a POTUS has to be born citizen with no dual citizenship. And I would ask them if they have seen some proof of that he is a born citizen with no dual citizenship? They would of course say no. So I would just ask them to get one. That’s it that’s all. How easier can it get?

Let’s face it, who can take Obama word on that? He is such a pathological liar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Craig, slow down and think for a minute. The court system does not enforce, they interpret laws. They are not the entity that qualifies individuals for public office.

If someone… like Hillary… filed a lawsuit as Keyes and Berg, etal have, it does not start out with the Supreme’s. It starts in the lower courts, depending on the district and jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed.

The Supreme’s have not rejected anything yet that I know of except the injunction Berg requested on Dec 8th. I do not know if they have refused to do a review (or writ of certorari) of the lower court’s decision to dismiss.

And who knows what they would have done with a Hillary lawsuit because it depends on the brief filed, and the arguments used. What you do not know, or do not present, isn’t used as an argument in a court. They don’t fill in the blanks for you. So your brief must be complete, hopefully stocked with evidence, and compelling.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Does this help?” (Mata)

Yes a bit. But am I still stunned. I was sure that the only thing in USA that was important to the judicial was your Constitution.

I cannot believe that a POTUS has the right to hide his birth certificate and get away with it. Why doesn’t the Court ask him his BC to be sure he is eligible? He could be a Kenyan Muslim for all we know. No ones knows where he comes from because he hides it and pays lawyers millions dollars to hide it. Something is very wrong here, for sure. Why does the Supreme Court let him get away with that? This is what I don’t understand. Never mind how the Justice fonction, just tell me why they won’t ask for his birth certificate and I will be happy. I am really stunned and cannot believe that he will get away with it. If he does, then tell me why you have a Constitution if you can bypass it so easily? If the Court cannot do anything, can the FBI or CIA do something about it and ask for poofs? There must be someone in the States that can stop this fraud… because it sure looks like a fraud, a massive fraud.

P.S.: If McCain… no, not Mccain, he doesn’t have the guts, but let’s say Hillary Clinton would have file a law suit in the court to get Obama’s BC, would the Supreme Court have also reject her case ?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That’s okay, Craig. I would confess considerable naivety about Canadian issues, so you’d run circles around me there.

Here, even tho the issue may be “cared” about, indicated by the level of discussion, the courts act on one thing only (again, in theory…)… interpretation of the law. The way the three branches of power in is the US is set up is:

Congress/legislature: creates the laws (with veto power by POTUS), and controls the US budget appropriation/spending

Judicial: interprets the laws – but only when they are challenged in a court of law. They do not read Congressional legislation before it is passed and let them know if it’s unConstitutional. Nothing happens until it’s challenged. And no amount of public opinion is supposed to hold sway.

Administrative/POTUS: (includes law enforcement) enforces the laws

Thus, in reality, Congress can pass a bill with unConstitutional authority. The POTUS can sign that bill into law, and that law is enforced until someone challenges the law in a court. Meaning, of course, that your Constitutional rights must be violated in order to file a lawsuit. You can’t file a lawsuit just because you believe a law is unConstitutional without having been “wronged”, so to speak. Sometimes you can, however, solicit an Attorney General opinion on a law without having a lawsuit.

At that point, the judicial system examines the law for interpretation. A lower court can find it Constitutional, and the plaintiff can appeal to higher courts, working his/her way to SCOTUS. That’s the dead end of the judicial road.

The SCOTUS deals with lower court decisions, and all that was involved in their decision. That’s why the “no standing” argument in Berg is what they will address… because that was the only decision made by the lower courts.

Does this help?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well Mata, you are right, I don’t really know how your Network works. But here in Canada you could be sure that everyone would be talking about it, night and day, if this had occurred here in our country. We do not wait for the Court to decide, we make sure that the Court knows that we care deeply about this matter; so we talk a lot about it and hope that it will finally influence the Court’s decision to act quickly and to give us an honest answer, because we believe that WE the people deserves one.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Craig, Mike’sA is correct. The Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and O’Reilly radio shows are all syndicated. They program their own material, and live or die on ratings alone. The radio networks that buy their syndicated shows have no say in their content. You can “disagree” with Mike all you want, of course. But you are unaware of how syndication works.

Any of the networks are free to drop any of the shows at will. If, however, the ratings are good, and they are usually packaged (as Rush is with Dr. Laura usually), they are fools to do so. They don’t care about content, but volume of listeners…. because big audiences attract the advertisers.

O’Reilly and Hannity’s cable news shows may or may not have some limitations as it relates to legal risk. However the networks do not play “producers” with their segments.

Now… if you’ve come to your erroneous conclusion just based on the notion that – if they aren’t talking about the Obama birth certificate that they must be censored – then you can go back and revisit my comments about how this is a non-story until the courts actually make a notable decision in any of the sundry cases. And they, like me, or sick to death of discussing something that is still a ways into the future as to it’s outcome. There are other more pertinent and expedient issues to be addressed. Waiting for a lawsuit to make news is like watching grass grow. It took six years for the SCOTUS to deal with the RKBA in Heller. But you didn’t find it in the news everyday until then, right?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t recall it ever being a top story with any of them and I watch and listen to them all on a daily basis.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So why were they always talking about it and now they don’t?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Craig: Despite what you may think, neither O’Reilly or Hannity have ever been shut up on any subject this one included. Even if Rupert Murdoch personally told them to lay off they would not.

Now, can we get back to talking about something that isn’t a fantasy?

Like or Dislike: 0  0