'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location

[jimpeel]

That pesky .1% governmental fringe rears its' ugly head:

I guess only .1% of the entire world's population care about the rule of law. The other 99.9% don't give a shit about the law or its enforcement.

If chcr says so, it must be true. Surely he wouldn't make broad generalizations about something of such importance.

A forged "Certification of live birth" does not a standard U.S. birth certificate make.

But according to chcr that doesn't matter as long as 99.9% of the world's population are willing to accept the forgery as real.

If chcr says so, it must be true.

 

[catocom]

I guess only .1% of the entire world's population care about the rule of law. The other 99.9% don't give a shit about the law or its enforcement.

some have tried and tried, all they know to do to get laws enforced that have
been overlooked for the last 20 years, and not much good result.
Some have just given up the fight.

Tell me...What can we (ordinary citizens) do?

 

[MrBishop]

Easy for someone to say whose constitution will not be sullied and bastardized. The fact is that we are talking about the Supreme Law of the Land, not some law on traffic infractions. If one is willing to give up the integrity of the Supreme Law of the Land then they are willing to give up the integrity of everything -- including themselves.

It's amended or re-interpreted all the damn time...

 

[Gonz]

You just stated the difference yourself!

Then spike is, surprise surprise, wrong in his assesment.

You either is or you ain't.

 

[chcr]

Then spike is, surprise surprise, wrong in his assesment.

You either is or you ain't.

Was that supposed to be understandable?

*sigh* Let me try one more time. Cerise stated that if you were not born in American territory you were ineligible to be president. Spike suggested (correctly) that this was, in fact, not the case. You, in your childish hurry to disagree with spike, actually posted the correct rule, evidently thinking somehow that this proved spike wrong (which, of course, it didn't). You then continue to be truculent as well as obtuse despite having had the difference pointed out several times by multiple posters. If it's not clear now then it never will be.

Since he was born in United States territory and his mother was and is a United States citizen, the whole point becomes moot, now doesn't it?

 

[Gonz]

Listen you pompous prick, I was trying to figure out what you, or spike, was saying.

I have no idea where Obama was born. I don't care. It was apparently looked at by the courts & ruled okay. Cerise is the only one who posted the rules.

I was trying to get clarification & you, in your standard infintite arrogance, couldn't clarify. Blow me.

 

[chcr]

Listen you pompous prick, I was trying to figure out what you, or spike, was saying.

I have no idea where Obama was born. I don't care. It was apparently looked at by the courts & ruled okay. Cerise is the only one who posted the rules.

I was trying to get clarification & you, in your standard infintite arrogance, couldn't clarify. Blow me.

Uh-huh.

 

[jimpeel]

some have tried and tried, all they know to do to get laws enforced that have
been overlooked for the last 20 years, and not much good result.
Some have just given up the fight.

Tell me...What can we (ordinary citizens) do?

The first thing that all American citizens could do is to withdraw their outstretched hand and stand erect on their own two feet.

In the absence of that, there's this bridge in Concord, MA that stands as a symbol of what the last guys did.

Those guys told us that the government governs by the consent of the governed. Too many have decided to consent to let the government govern as they damn well see fit.

They told us that we have a right, and even a duty to change or abolish the government as we see fit. They even made sure we would have the tools to do so if the need became great.

The ordinary citizen needs to study the issues and the candidates and reject those which offend them. They need to start paying attention and stop giving a pass to politicians who behave badly in office. They need to make those who behave badly atone for their indiscretions by throwing them out of office wholesale. They need to stop forgiving them their trespasses based on party fealty.

The ordinary citizen needs to attend the candidate's open houses and tell them publicly and to their faces what they are doing wrong; and tell them that they are not willing to overlook their dalliances and indiscretions.

The ordinary citizen needs to get involved with their political party and stop overlooking the sins of their candidates because s/he is "one of us". Sarah Palin showed us how to do that when she went after the corrupt influences in here own party and got them fined and thrown out of office. She showed what one ordinary citizen can do if they but grow a set of balls.

The ordinary citizen needs to get involved with citizen groups who monitor candidates. There is strength in numbers.

So get involved, get in your candidate's face, tell them what is expected from them, and hold them to those standards. Stop letting them get away with failing to adhere to those standards.

 

[jimpeel]

It's amended or re-interpreted all the damn time...

Its been amended 27 times in 219 years. I don't call that "all the time". If by "all the time" you mean the activist judges making up their own interpretation and amending the Constitution from the bench that is a specious argument. Amending the Constitution from the bench is a criminal act and you apparently see no problem with that. There are clear, concise, and unambiguous guidelines written within the Constitution which detail the proper and lawful way that the Supreme Law of the Land is supposed to be amended. Nowhere in that document does it declare that modifying the Constitution from the bench by activist judges is in any manner prescribed of legal.

The fact that you are okay with this, and arguing the side for entertaining and allowing such abuses, speaks volumes about your respect for the law; but being a Canadian subject what else could one expect?

Look at what you have there. Are you aware that when a jury trial acquits a defendant that the prosecution can appeal that decision? That doesn't happen here. Once acquitted, the defendant is free to go and the government has no power of appeal.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded. In contrast to the laws of the United States, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict. It has been suggested that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, Martin L Friedland, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just one of many factors.

This is one of the primary reasons that we parted the ways with the Crown while, after over two-hundred years, you continue to accept their tyranny.

 

[spike]

Easy for someone to say whose constitution will not be sullied and bastardized. The fact is that we are talking about the Supreme Law of the Land, not some law on traffic infractions. If one is willing to give up the integrity of the Supreme Law of the Land then they are willing to give up the integrity of everything -- including themselves.

I've been trying to tell that to the Bush supporters but they just keep making excuses for him.

The ordinary citizen needs to study the issues and the candidates and reject those which offend them. They need to start paying attention and stop giving a pass to politicians who behave badly in office. They need to make those who behave badly atone for their indiscretions by throwing them out of office wholesale. They need to stop forgiving them their trespasses based on party fealty.

That one too.

 

[Cerise]

Obama haters in last-ditch effort to derail his presidency

This small contingent of conservative activists is focusing on the Electoral College, the body that actually selects a US president. Its 538 members are to meet in their respective state capitals on December 15 for what will almost certainly be a formal confirmation of Mr Obama’s popular-vote victory on November 4.

The improbable attempt to short-circuit Obama’s election highlights the refusal of a small minority of Americans to accept the voters’ verdict of November 4. This seemingly desperate effort also calls attention to one of the peculiarities of the US presidential election process.

The vote for president is not truly a national election, but rather a series of contests in the 50 states. What matters, according to the US constitution, is not the nationwide popular vote tally, but rather the allocation of votes among the 538 members of the Electoral College.

Americans technically vote for a set of electors pledged to a particular candidate — and not directly for the candidate. In 48 of the states, the candidate with the largest share of the popular vote is awarded all of the state’s electors.

Electors are distributed in accordance with the states’ relative populations. Thus, California has the most electors, 55, while thinly populated states have as few as 3 electors.

The Electoral College is one of the legacies of African enslavement. It gave disproportionate power to southern states that denied black people the right to vote.

These slave-holding states were permitted to count a slave as three-fifths of a human being for the purpose of apportionment of the Electoral College.

Hey, Obamalamadingdong -- don't be a hater. Inquiring minds want to know.

Spend $10 bucks and cough up a copy of the original legal certificate of birth -- it would settle this is in an instant.


"For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

 

[Cerise]

Obama & Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorists

They don't have political rallies to bring them together anymore, but it's no secret that a lot of people out there don't much like Barack Obama. The president-elect, according to his more fervent campaign-season detractors, has a raft of unforgivable faults: He's a socialist, a Muslim, an actual love-child of Malcolm X. His birth certificate was missing, his book had been ghost-written by William Ayers, and his wife, "Mrs. Grievance," as a National Review cover dubber her, was perennially on the cusp of getting caught ranting against the white man. The only thing keeping the Illinois senator's infamy from going public is the quiescence of the liberal media. Perhaps you remember.

The clean-up crews were probably still sweeping confetti from Grant Park, in fact, when the first wave of paranoiac Obama-reaction hit the press: A run on gun-shops by disaffected red-staters convinced that the 44th president would do to the Second Amendment what Bill Ayers tried to do to New York City Police Headquarters. "He wants to take our guns from us and create a socialist society policed by his own police force," Jim Pruett, a Houston-based radio-personality-turned-gun-dealer, told the New York Times.

 

[MrBishop]

Its been amended 27 times in 219 years. I don't call that "all the time". If by "all the time" you mean the activist judges making up their own interpretation and amending the Constitution from the bench that is a specious argument. Amending the Constitution from the bench is a criminal act and you apparently see no problem with that. There are clear, concise, and unambiguous guidelines written within the Constitution which detail the proper and lawful way that the Supreme Law of the Land is supposed to be amended. Nowhere in that document does it declare that modifying the Constitution from the bench by activist judges is in any manner prescribed of legal.

First and foremost. I'm not saying that I approve or decry the amendments, not the Rulings from the Courts (From both houses, mind you..you make it sound like it's just the Dems that do this). I am counting those changes in my 'all the damn time'. It's a statement, not a supportive statement.

The fact that you are okay with this, and arguing the side for entertaining and allowing such abuses, speaks volumes about your respect for the law; but being a Canadian subject what else could one expect?

Again, I am not Okay with this. What I am saying is that IF Obama was not eligible for the Presidency, that this would have been discovered LONG before he was president-elect. If not by the Republican political machine, than by Clinton or any other number of members of the Democratic party.

Look at what you have there. Are you aware that when a jury trial acquits a defendant that the prosecution can appeal that decision? That doesn't happen here. Once acquitted, the defendant is free to go and the government has no power of appeal.

But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded
If the Trial is thrown out (Much like your mistrials), it's re-tried without touching double-jeapordy...or are you saying that in order to get off Scot-free, any criminal need only cause a mis-trial or a hung-jury?

It doesn't matter which direction the trial was going prior to it being considered a mis-trial. The prosecution is able to ask for a new trial - and I see no problem with this. If it's a finished trial, then double-jeapordy rules apply.

This is one of the primary reasons that we parted the ways with the Crown while, after over two-hundred years, you continue to accept their tyranny.

Accept their tryany? You have no idea how things work up here if you think that the Crown has anything more than ceremonial control over our country.

 

[Cerise]

Last Chance for the Constitution?

Most Americans don't realize it yet, but this Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Barack Obama is indeed constitutionally eligible to become the next president.

The justices will hold a conference on the question and consider the case for formal review.

The case is brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, and questions whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Whether the birth certificate posted on various websites is genuine or not is almost beside the point as to his eligibility. Since Hawaii was known to register foreign births in the 1960s, the portion of the certificate released by the Obama campaign proves nothing, since it does not reveal such details as the hospital in which he was allegedly born.

Meanwhile, some of Obama's own Kenyan relatives claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa.

This controversy, which some have dismissed as frivolous, is as serious as the literal meaning of the Constitution itself.

If the Constitution is not taken seriously as concerns the eligibility of the president, is it likely to be taken seriously in other matters?

The Electoral College meets on 12-15-08 to vote for a president-elect.

Constitutionally, IF it is revealed before that date that snObama is not eligible to be POTUS, then the Electoral College must choose from the remaining candidates for the Office of President. So it would be between Nader, McCain, and Barr.

After that date according to The 20th Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.



If The One was indeed born in Hawaii why hasn't the hospital come forth to claim the honors? After all, a school was renamed for B.H.O. for no apparent reason, so why not commemorate the site of his glorious birth with a plaque, if not an entire wing?

 

[spike]

There was even a birth announcement in the local paper.

This is looking pretty sad.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

 

[chcr]

...frivolous and not worthy of discussion.

Couldn't have put it better.

Well, utter bullshit but I guess a judge couldn't put it that way, huh?

 

[Professur]

This is one of the primary reasons that we parted the ways with the Crown while, after over two-hundred years, you continue to accept their tyranny.

No, you accepted another kind of tyranny, and continue to piss away millions of hard earned dollars every 4 years in the effort to convince yourself that you're better off.

 

[jimpeel]

First and foremost. I'm not saying that I approve or decry the amendments, not the Rulings from the Courts (From both houses, mind you..you make it sound like it's just the Dems that do this). I am counting those changes in my 'all the damn time'. It's a statement, not a supportive statement.

I don't know where you got that part about my making it sound like it is only the Dems who do this; but its not the first time you have been creative in your writings here.

Again, I am not Okay with this. What I am saying is that IF Obama was not eligible for the Presidency, that this would have been discovered LONG before he was president-elect. If not by the Republican political machine, than by Clinton or any other number of members of the Democratic party.

This has been ongoing for months. I know that you know this because I started THIS THREAD nearly five months ago and YOU PARTICIPATED in that thread TWICE.

But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded
If the Trial is thrown out (Much like your mistrials), it's re-tried without touching double-jeapordy...or are you saying that in order to get off Scot-free, any criminal need only cause a mis-trial or a hung-jury?

Nice cherry picking; but I bolded the pertinent information so you would not miss it. Guess I was mistaken. You simply chose to ignore it.

Mistrials and hung jury trials are retriable here. It is only when an actual acquittal is tendered that the facts previously introduced as fact cannot be retried even in the face of misconduct.

In the Canadian model the government can appeal and if the trial was improperly conducted and the facts can, ONCE AGAIN, be retried. In America the facts from a previous trial cannot be retried. Only new facts can be used in a new trial.

Example: The body and weapon were never found and there was nothing but circumstantial evidence presented at trial -- plane tickets to the city where the alleged crime occurred, tape recorded threats to the victim, etc. -- where the defendant is acquitted. After that trial, a shallow grave containing a corpse, the weapon, and DNA evidence linking the acquitted defendant to the murder. All of those can be introduced at the new trial based on new charges but the evidence from the prior trial cannot be presented.

It doesn't matter which direction the trial was going prior to it being considered a mis-trial. The prosecution is able to ask for a new trial - and I see no problem with this. If it's a finished trial, then double-jeapordy rules apply.

Again, you missed the bolded portion of my post so I will reiterate here:

In contrast to the laws of the United States, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. (An acquittal can only happen at the conclusion of a trial. - j) If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. (That would be a reversal of the verdict entered by the jury - j) This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict. (In other words, a technicality - j) It has been suggested that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, Martin L Friedland, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just one of many factors.

Accept their tryany? You have no idea how things work up here if you think that the Crown has anything more than ceremonial control over our country.

Your laws reflect that relationship.

 

[MrBishop]

The acquittal/prosecution doesn't finish (conclude) the trial unless there's no appeal. If there's an appeal, the trial (with the verdict listed) is still considered open. If the appeal fails (or if there's no call for appeal), the original trial is closed/concluded. At which point, double-jeopardy applies. If the appeal shows merit, the process starts anew.

Appeals don't succeed as often as you'd imagine.

Our laws for most of Canada come from the British common law. Quebec also has a civil law. Both fall under the Constitution.

Bet you forgot that your common law is still based under the British common law.

 

[2minkey]

i haven't read this thread thoroughly (and why would i subject myself to that?) but it seems like double jeopardy is being discussed in a non-criminal matter. i don't think it applies.