piss on the cowards on the us supreme court
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 8, 2008 9:47am CST
Barack Obama apparently considers himself too important to prove his eligibility for the office... well, he might as well because the total and complete cowards on the US Supreme Court have decided they his arrogance it warranted... They are refusing to hold him up to Constitutional scrutiny.
If the cowards on the High Court aren't willing to do the job, then who will?John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas, I don't care what honor or experience you brought to the US Supreme Court, today you have brought nothing but shame.
You are no longer worthy of the office to which you have been entrusted.
The US Constitution is left flapping in the wind because you refused to do your job!
PISS ON YOU ALL!
Does this mean I won't consider Barack Obama the 44th President of the US? Yes, I will, the cowardice and dishonor of the Supreme Court notwithstanding, if Obama is elected by the Electoral College, then yes he is the next president of the United States.
Heaven help our Republic though if it ever comes to light that Obama was not eligible. It will be grounds for civil war...
6 people like this
12 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
8 Dec 08
I think they should have taken the case just to end this controversy once and for all. Personally, I believe that Obama is eligible but, as is evident on this board and on many locations on the web, there are those who don't or who are unsure, so this issue will always divide us. I have to wonder if they considered themselves to be incapable...and that concerns me a lot.
4 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Dec 08
In fairness to the Supreme Court, this case would not have answered all the questions once and for all. This case was about his citizenship as it applies to whether or not it was revoked in favor of citizenship in Indonedia. The court couldn't rightfully go beyond the facts in evidence for that case alone.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Dec 08
No, it isn't "a citizen is a citizen is a citizen". If Obama's parents had his US citizenship revoked, he is no longer a citizen. If Obama's step father did adopt him and his name was legally changed to Soeto then he may be a citizen but he cannot sign Obama on official documents. If his mother did not meet the residency requirements according to US law at the time, then Obama isn't a citizen.
Personally, I hope he is a citizen and completely eligible to be president, mostly because I would hate for our country to have to endure the fallout if he isn't.
1 person likes this
@chameleonsdream (1230)
• United States
8 Dec 08
It revolves around whether those with dual citizenship at birth are natural born citizens. Period. Even the guy who filed the case says so. According to Donofrio, Obama is not eligible because he was a British citizen at birth because his father was a British citizen. Since there is not a thing in the Constitution or in the law that says or implies that, ruling on it would involve making new law - and that's not the function of the Supreme Court. I'm speculating, since no one on the Court chose to write on the ruling. I also speculate that all those people who scream about the Supreme Court making new law instead of interpreting current law wouldn't raise a ruckus about it in this case.
I personally would like to see it addressed by the legislature, since current law actually holds that any person born on US soil is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Dec 08
There is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation. An investigation that needs to take place before he is sworn in and preferably before the Electoral College meets later this month.
Here is a site that lists the evidence. In fairness, none of this is proof, but you don't need proof to warrant an investigation, that is what investigations are for.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Dec 08
Let me add that I think he is eligible to be president, but as I said, there is enough evidence to warrant a further look.
2 people like this
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
9 Dec 08
oregon, your new here and I realize that you are very passionate about this topic but you are getting way too worked up. Parated is a very respected member here and it is ok to disagree & debate but it really isn't ok to continue to question his intelligence. I, personally, think he is wrong on this issue but the truth is do any of us know for sure?
1 person likes this
@visitorinvasion (7709)
• United States
9 Dec 08
They didn't order him to prove his citizenship?
OMG! I repeat: OMG!
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Dec 08
Nope, in fact they not only didn't order him to prove it, they declined to even consider the posibility.
You know, it would be one thing if they bothered deliberating about cases, but according to Justices Thomas and Scalia, they rarely do. They each listen to the case made by the lawyers, take a break in chambers for awhile and then each vote and go with the outcome.
1 person likes this
@HeavenUnaware (1757)
• United States
2 Jan 09
If Obama isn't hiding anything and has presented the documents, in the past, to prove he is eligble, then why is he having such an issue with showing them again?
If the DMV asks me for my birth certificate and I show it to them .. and then a few months later, I get a letter stating I need to come in and show it again because they don't have record of it - do you think I'm going to tell them "no"? That's silly. I would take it down there and show it to them again. What's the big deal?
Honesty doesn't need to hide or cover things up - only lies do. If Mr. Obama is telling the truth and IS eligble and wants the people of this country to have faith in him, then he needs to produce them again and be done with it. You'd think he'd want to considering how simple of an act would cause such relief for so many of his fellow countrymen.
I fear this man is not what he claims to be and I fear that this country was so gung-ho to elect a black man - that they turned the other cheek on issues that should have been examined whether he was white, black, yellow or brown.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Jan 09
The problem is, we don't know. The even bigger problem is, most Americans don't seem to care.
2 people like this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
2 Jan 09
I would love to believe that he is eligible. I don't agree with him politically and don't like him personally but I wasn't a big fan of Bush 41 either. I still voted for Bush 41. I still don't want a constitutional crises that could through our system into unforeseen and unplanned for turmoil. We need a system that prevents people running without proof of eligibility(I'd personally like to quit hearing from the perpetual candidate in the federal penitentiary.) we also need some simple honesty. If the man is qualified why does he work so hard to hide the proof?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Dec 08
This has been a topic about which I've tried to be very careful how I respond! I don't want to be accused of not caring about our Constitution; in fact, that's one of my biggest problems with our current Administration, the way Bush and Co. have treated our Constitution like, as Bush himself allegedly said, "Just a GD piece of paper". Yes, I DO support President Elect Obama, I have supported him for some time and I voted for him. I have high hopes for him and for our country and despite the fact I know many of not most here on myLot disagree with me I also know many Americans DO share my view. That doesn't mean I'd want him sworn in as President no matter what but frankly I don't take these allegations seriously at all.
I can't help but wonder how it could possibly be that the current Administration, the RNC, the McCain campaign as well as those of McCain's opponents for the nomination and the conservative leaning Supreme Court have all allowed someone they seriously believe is ineligible to actually get so far as to be elected President. I don't watch Fox News hardly at all but I haven't heard that Sean Hannity and his pals have been saying a whole lot about this issue. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I have a feeling if Hannity had been railing about this someone here would have quoted him over and over again by now. I also can't imagine how somebody in the media, even if the media were as biased as the right claims it to be, wouldn't put their own gain ahead of their liberal leanings by really digging into this issue if they believed it had any merit.
I care about the Constitution but I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert by any means so it would seem the right leaning Supreme Court must know something the rest of us don't or at least see it differently than the myLot conservatives do.
Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
11 Dec 08
I wanted to add my two cents about Ted. He's as far from a troll as one can be. He and I disagree on a lot of political issues but we can do so respectfully and still be friends. For someone who's new here it's wise to learn from the start that you can express your opinion but we really can all get along here despite our different views.
Annie
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Thank you both for your kind words, I do feel the same about you both.
1 person likes this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
2 Jan 09
That constitutional crises we keep hearing about has finally arrived. No one has authority to check his qualifications until he is elected. He won't be elected until the electoral college meets. The tight connections of the party place the president, VP and speaker of the house in a position where they may all have to answer if he is proven to not be a citizen after the election and that's everyone the constitution recognizes as having a right of succession to the oval office. At best we will see the VP eliminated because his election was based on fraud and Nancy Pelosi gets 4 years in an office she wasn't elected to. All things considered we better hope he's constitutionally qualified.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Jan 09
The Electoral College has met and elected Obama.
1 person likes this
@alindahaw (1219)
• Philippines
9 Dec 08
I think that the Supreme Court is skirting the issue and for good reasons. Just imagine how difficult things will be if Obama turned out to be ineligible to hold office. With the many problems that the country is facing today, it would not be a good idea to cause some major upheavel by declaring the president elect as inelgible to assume into office.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
9 Dec 08
I believe there's ample evidence even without the courts review of an official birth certificate to show that Obama is natural born. With what evidence we have, and all the trouble the country has been through during the past year, I'd have been surprised if the court did decide to hear the case. I think all this racket being raised about Obama's birth is just being raised by sore losers.
The silver lining in the cloud for all of this, might I point out, is that if we find out Obama really was born in another country, not only will he be removed from office no matter how far into he is, he will forever be branded as a forked tongue liar who cheated his way into the White House. The golden child of the democratic party will be considered even worse than Bush in terms of dishonesty.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Dec 08
Sorry, I don't see a silver lining in a situation that would almost be sure to cause civil war.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
9 Dec 08
"Civil war sounds very far fetched, though."
It really isn't as far fetched as you might think. While we aren't on the brink, we are probably close than we have been in about a century and a half. It wouldn't take much to spark it.
2 people like this
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
9 Dec 08
From what I understand & I could be so wrong here as so many stories have been passed around...who knows what is truth.....His mother was american and because she never married his father, that does make him legally american. He was raised here in America.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
9 Dec 08
I do not believe that any political party would run an ineligible candidate as it would destroy their party if it ever came to light and it would be found out. I think it is quite clear that if Obama was not eligible someone would have proved it by now.
There were enough anti Obama people to make sure that if he was not eligible he would have been exposed. I am Australian and our leaders take their seat the day after the election. I think this strange waiting period that gives Bush time to push through as much environmental sabotage bills as he can is ridiculous.
Personally I think that the fuss over Obama's birth certificate is a very minor affair that some people think is way too important.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Like I've said before, I do think that he is actually eligible, but the fact that we don't know for sure it scary. The fact that Obama is such an arrogant oaf that he refuses to prove his eligible is telling.
But we'll just have to wait and see if he is ever proven to be ineligible, and it will cause civil war if it ever happens.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Nixon made himself ineligible with the Watergate break in and other actions.
It's only a "fuss" if he truly is eligible. If he isn't, and serves anyway, it will be catastrophic.
What would you do if you found that the current Prime Minister of Australia was not legally eligible to hold that position?
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
12 Dec 08
Well anyone who wants to stand for parliament has to prove eligibility before they can stand for election regardless of what position they hold in the party. To be prime minister the person must be leading his party at the election and win his seat.
After all the only requirement is that the person be a citizen of our country. We are not fussed about where they were born. Each party has a different way of electing their leader. There was at least one person I know of who challenged for the leadership and won the position in his first term as a politician but he had been recruited by his party from the trade unions and he won the next election. But even then he had proved his eligibility to stand for parliament so he was eligible.
I doubt that anyone could get that far with fake citizenship as they are too well investigated. If someone got elected and they were not a citizen then I do not know how I would feel. Surprised that the system failed maybe.
@piniongrl (142)
• United States
12 Dec 08
In all fairness I would like to say that the man championing the case Phillip Berg IS a Democrat. I would also like to add that Obama beat him for the Senate seat in 2004. The necessary documents have been provided, many people go to school overseas without losing citizenship. The supreme court has spoken, that's it, sorry. There are some on here who seem genuinely AFRAID of Obama being president. I worry for them and there well being and hope that they can try to support this country in such a hard time and lot live in such fear.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Dec 08
Actually, the opposite is true, the Supreme Court refused to speak on the subject at all. Which means they are too cowardly to do their mandated job. There is a serious Constitutional question here, one that could cause a Consitutional crisis, and they refuse to hear the case.
Couple this with the cases they have taken that have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and we see them for the cesspool of bile they are.
1 person likes this
@Palatinus (8)
• United States
8 Dec 08
I don't think SCOTUS wants to be responsible for mass rioting that would ensue should the decision not favor the election results. They already took major flack because of the 2000 decision to OK Florida's certification of the vote count, thus handing President Bush the election.
And that was a CLOSE election. This one wasn't so close. Obama was the clear winner. Now imagine the Supreme Court overturning that. Ouch.
So it's not that I would disagree with SCOTUS, but I can understand them being unwilling to take the case.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Dec 08
So they think it would be better to have it come out after he's been sworn in?
I'm not saying he isn't eligible, I don't know. But it may cause riots if it turns out he is ineligible before he takes the oath of office, if we are forced to endure what would happen if he is proven ineligible after he takes office, it will rip apart this country.
We haven't been this close to civil war since the civil war.
3 people like this