Monday, June 11, 2012

Government Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Birth Certificate Case

Government Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Birth Certificate Case


WASHINGTON (AP/The Blaze) — The Supreme Court – the only legal authority with the power to directly interpret the United States constitution – has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit. At the time, the Los Angeles Times reported that:
None of the “birthers” who filed suit on Inauguration Day 2009 can show that they suffered any harm from the Obama presidency that would give them the right to sue him, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in dismissing the lawsuit brought by dozens of opponents.
Even the political candidates who lost to Obama in 2008 would only have had standing to sue if they had filed their complaint alleging unfair competition from an ineligible candidate before the election, the 9th Circuit judges said.
Given that this decision was passed over without comment, one is safe in assuming that the US Supreme Court found nothing worth relitigating in the reasoning involved. There is also this crucially important point from the LA Times story:

The 9th Circuit judges noted at the hearing as well as in their ruling Thursday that aside from the plaintiffs’ lack of standing, the challenge of Obama‘s legitimacy to serve as president is a political question beyond any federal court’s power to decide. Only Congress can impeach a president, and any citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C., the 9th Circuit panel noted.

In other words, given that the Supreme Court has declined to rule without comment, all Federal courts within the purview covered by the 9th Circuit Court are categorically barred from tackling this question.
Moreover, even if Federal courts were to declare President Obama ineligible to hold office, they would have no authority to enforce that ruling. Why? Because removal of a President from office (IE impeachment) is a power only enjoyed by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution says only “a natural born citizen” may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than in Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case Challenging President Obamas Birth Certificate and Eligibility to be President
The "forgery" in question
However, not only have Hawaii officials have repeatedly verified Obama’s citizenship (Related: See Hawaii‘s Official Form Verifying They Have Obama’s Birth Certificate), but the website snopes.com, which is devoted to debunking urban legends, has done an exhaustive run-through of the various claims that the certificate is a forgery and debunked them all. These include the claims that parts of the document are anachronistic, that the hospital name is wrong, and that layering appears in the document when it is put into Adobe Illustrator. On this last point, the Snopes article links to an analysis by an actual expert at Adobe software, who had this to say, according to Fox News:
But that’s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.
“You should not be so suspicious about this,” Tremblay told FoxNews.com, dismissing the allegations.
He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.
“When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn’t look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers.”
Keyes and Drake ran against Obama on the American Independent Party ticket and Robinson serves as the party’s chairman.

It is worth noting that the Court did not address the more complicated allegations of birtherism put forward by such figures as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, who asserts that a natural born citizen must be someone who was born of two United States Citizens in order to be considered eligible for office.


However, this theory is controversial even among birthers, as it would invalidate not only the Presidency of Barack Obama, but also of Chester Arthur in the 1880s. There are controversies surrounding Arthur’s eligibility to this day, but those controversies remain unsettled because they hinge on the question of whether Arthur was born in Vermont. The theory advanced by Farah would invalidate Arthur’s claim simply because his father was not a United States citizen at the time Arthur was born, a theory of citizenship which the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush has called “dangerous,” and which was also debunked by Snopes.
Needless to say, calling into question the eligibility of obscure 19th century Presidents is a step that a Court will be reluctant to take, and with good reason. Moreover, this interpretation would render such conservative heroes as Marco Rubio ineligible for the Presidency, a prospect which many, even with Birther sympathies, do not find attractive.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

With all of this , does anybody think we are really at the verge of big changing ? mass arrest and SaLuSa mentioned several times that P. Obama is a special soul of this end time before earth's ascension .
Even back to 2008 everybody crazy about him ,but I never felt comfortable with anything this person preached , am I wrong ? My instinct told me shouldn't be wrong .but to this point I hope I was wrong .How anybody else feels all about this person- Barack Obama?

Anonymous said...

Looks to Me we don't have any chance at a fair day in court.If we tried to get congress to impeach they would say they can't because he don't fall under the constitution. because He is not subject to the laws that govern someone who is qualified to be a constitutional president.

Anonymous said...

All the judges have all been bought. I cant wait till we get rid of them. Come on nesara

CiceroGrimes said...

"Only Congress can impeach a president, and any citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C., the 9th Circuit panel noted."

"In other words, given that the Supreme Court has declined to rule without comment, all Federal courts within the purview covered by the 9th Circuit Court are categorically barred from tackling this question."

If you understand the "legal standing" or more accurately stated "legal Jurisdiction of the court", the judge is telling us the correct method and the appropriate court to use.

did you catch it?
citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C.,

I thought the court to file this in was in Pennsylvania but the judge is saying DC.
which in itself is a seperate city state with its own government, actually a foriegn government in repsect to the states (50)
DC would be a 51st state however it is not part of the 50 states of the United States of America

I know this sounds like jibberish to some but others know exactly what I am saying.

and also that this whole issue is moot, since the truth to the matter is in fact we have a De-facto "corporate" government that does not give a rats behind about the "real constitution" that we are led to believe they are operating under
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
ORDER OUT OF CHAOS

so yeah he isnt a natural born citizen, but it doesnt matter for the corporate constitution obviously doesnt have any such restriction.

This fake government only has power the same way its fake money has any value.

if the banks can create credit anybody can
and its pretty obvious at this point someone else should because the people doing it now are using it to enslaving us
Peace

Anonymous said...

ALL THESE AHOS NEED TO BE TRIED BY US.... SENTENCED TO HANGING ....PUT THEM ON A HORSE WITH A ROPE AROUND THEIR TRAITOROUS NECKS AND SLAPP THE HORSE ON THE BUM... END OF THAT PROBLEM.... HOW FRICKEN LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR SOMEONE TO GET THIS GOING.. WHERE ARE THE 90% OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY THAT ARE SUPPOSE TO BE LOYAL TO THE PEOPLE OF THE usa AND THE usa CONSTITUTION ??

Anonymous said...

Ha, Ha! Did you expect anything different? The Supreme Court and Congress are paid off. Get ready for Obama to be president once again.

Anonymous said...

The Court is saying it wants a COMMON LAW WRIT. Why? Because we have returned to the COMMON LAW!!! Attorneys do not belong in a common law court. Therefore, what is needed is a person who has been harmed by such unlawful official, a common law court and perhaps a lawyer who has resigned his BAR membership (for advise). The official then must produce his authority in the form of evidence.

Quo warranto
Definition - Noun
[Medieval Latin, by what warrant; from the wording of the writ]
1  : an extraordinary writ requiring a person or corporation to show by what right or authority a public office or franchise is held or exercised
2  : a proceeding in the nature of a writ of quo warranto for determining by what authority or right an office or franchise is held or exercised and seeking as an extraordinary remedy the discontinuance of an unlawful exercise of office or franchise
Pronunciation'kwO-w&-'ran-tO, -'rän-

These attorneys are just playing games and wasting time and money - as usual.

Anonymous said...

No big surprise or shock. I say get a rope. The justus system is as corrupt as it gets from the scum at the bottom all the way to the scum at the top. By the end of this year, we will either be a free people or totally enslaved or dead.

Unknown said...

Today I am going to wal-mrt and purchase one of those so-called AMERICAN flags, which was the flag of the EAST INDIA TEA COMPANY and drag it behind my truck and bring it home, rip it to shreds and then burn the UGLY piece of garbage and then proceed to my reloading bench and load 500 more 308 rounds.
Eric-Gunther:Oberhauser SECURED PARTY/CREDITOR
Bolivar, Tennessee

Anonymous said...

The head of the corporate government and his minions are still guilty of fraud against the people as well as TREASON. So let's arrest them!

Anonymous said...

We need to treat them like what they are "an occupying invador" and stop paying them our tax money. When will we face it, America has been hijacked. They are no more federal than AT&T or Coca Cola and I don't pay them any taxes.

Anonymous said...

It sure calls the questions that you ask. The SCOTUS will not hear the case because the plaintiffs "have no standing", i.e. were not "harmed". Well, the American people have dam* sure been harmed by this useless Chicago thug and his actions. Should We the People refile it?

Anonymous said...

Obama is CEO of the UNITED STATES, a corporation NOT a Republic. Just as all Presidents have been since 1934, and likely before. The Constitution does not apply!