For the record... I, Richard Randall, think the law of the land, the constitution is important, and that ANYONE (including Barack Obama) should have to prove they are qualified to hold the highest office in the land. If he has nothing to hide he should prove it. He hasn't been willing to do so... so I want (and expect) the highest court in the land to force him to do so.
R2
This is the latest from the Chicago Tribune.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.
Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.
Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."
The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an application for an injunction and hasn't scheduled a conference on other aspects of the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing"—ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was referred by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard—and not all of those ultimately were successful.
21 comments:
Richard, please read this. I can't call you because right now I'm on vacation, but I am listening to you. This is utterly ridiculous. And to attack the main stream media is more than ridiculous.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/_citizen_yes_but_not.php
Richard - our Constitution is under attack, liberals are seeking to change this country (and they don't have the ability to see more than one step out with regard to consequences) in so many ways. Of course they don't care if Barack can legally hold the office of the President - they just hope he can do they things they want, and he will do it under the cloak of being black - we can't suggest he will be doing bad things as he is part of a protected group.
I am so glad I didn't have children, this country is flying down the tubes so fast it's not funny.
Pam
Pam, I am not a liberal I am a moderate Republican. And I don't know of one liberal who wants to change the Constitution. Your assertions are absolutely ridiculous.
In fact the ACLU (which in the eyes of most Republicans are liberals) has defended the Constitutional rights of citizens.
Just because he's black doesn't mean he will support anything that isn't within the Constitution.
I think that was a very racist statement. But I do know many people wouldn't vote for him because he is black.
Richard, I actually came on here to give you a link so that you can read some of the nonsense that seems to be going around about this whole issue. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/28/lawsuit-questions-obamas-eligibility-for-office/
And this is in a conservative newspaper.
bets - you proved my point - any attack on Barack will be construed as racism. I am not concerned about the mans' race but I am concerned about his potential to make serious errors. Many voted for him because he is black - that can be construed as racist as well. As he stands, his candidacy would never have seen the light of day, had he been not of "color" It would have been Hil all the way.
Pam, are you a Hil supporter? From what I understand most of them ended up supporting Obama. And, do you think that his cabinet supports your notion that "he will do it under the cloak of being black." That sounds to me to be racist. Remember he's half white. And by the way, many voted for Hillary because she's a woman.
I voted for Obama because he stands for things that I firmly believe in. The Republican ticket was a disaster. I really like McCain and supported him in the primary but when he sold his soul to the religious right with his pick of Palin as his VP that's when I knew I couldn't possibly give him a chance to be President.
With that said, I will again reiterate that many people who supported Obama supported him because of his stand on issues, not because he's black, or white, which ever you choose. :-) And by the way, just so no one accuses me of being an athiest, I AM a Christian, but I believe in the separation of Church and State. Obviously the religious right does not.
Hey, Richard,
Not going to waste my time worrying about extremists still trying to prove Obama is un-American.
But I do want to say I am listening to your show this morning. It was great to meet you last night, and I'm glad to know you're back on the air (even if we won't agree on everything).
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
Join the cause at www.growthbusters.com
So.
Did W have to prove his citizenship?
This ridiculous birth certificate issue is shameful.
Shame on you, Richard Randall. Have you no shame?
John,
"W" could prove his citizenship in about 30 minutes without flinching. Can "Barry"? Apparently not. The big question is WHY NOT? As Richard has said many times, and I could do likewise, it would be no problem for him or I to go to the county where we were born and get a valid certificate of birth. It could be accomplished in probably one business day.
David, he already did that. But again, the people who are angry about his election want him to prove it over and over again. As I've said before it's on his site. But that doesn't seem to be enough. And the state of Hawaii has certified that he was born there. Now the big deal to all you naysayers is that Hawaii says it's locked in a safe. I'm sure they have it on a disk, but the original is probably locked up as anyone's should be.
John, I went to the SCOTUS blog yesterday and it looks like the Supreme Court didn't do anything. But someone said Monday it would be on the blog as to what they did with the law suit. I know they didn't consider it on Friday. Now for a little facts. There were all of 12 people out in front of the Court with signs. Wow, lots of people are really concerned.
No, we do not want him to prove that he is a citizen over and over, we only want him to prove it once, publicly, so the issue can be put to rest.
There is a Hawaiian certificate of live birth that has been provided, and certified by the state of Hawaii. That being the case what is your issue?
http://www.slate.com/id/2206033/
Here's a picture of the actual birth certificate:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Next?
OK.. this is good... talking, and different opinions is good... I DO have shame, but this issue is not about that... it is about what is required by our constitution, and I think THAT is very important. I think anyone who runs for the office should be able, and should have to prove they are within the requirments of the law. Otherwise the law is meaningless... and if that is true... watch out for your freedoms of speech, religion, bearing arms, etc. because they are protected in that same document.
Did you demand that Bush present his Birth Certificate because it was required by the constitution?
Now that you have seen that Obama's birth certificate has been part of the public record since June will you apologize for taking part in this whacko conspiracy nonsense?
John, you take up the fight. LOL. They don't even know that he hasn't or has proved his citizenship. It is absolutely a riot that the right wing is so concerned about this when we have an economy in the tank, thanks to W, and a war in Iraq that Bush should never have called for.
By the way, 85% of the American public think that his Cabinet picks are right on.
So, John, I'll let you fight the birth certificate BS. On another thread on this blog I gave them the site to go to to see the birth certificate. And they started ripping that apart. So I'm not going to bother anymore. Personally I think it's getting to be humorous.
We can go around and around and the bottom line is that there are issues that needs to be cleared. President Bush did had to prove that he was qualified to be President. He was vetted.
President Elect Obama wasn't. His grandmother said that she was there when he was born in Kenia. That needs to be verified. Ignoring it is not taking our Constitution seriously.
@betsmeier -- I know. They just ignore the truth. The one who really disappoints me is Richard Randall though -- I believe he knows better. Giving a forum to this bs for ratings is irresponsible.
Well, I wasn't going to post anymore but since one person has posted on here that his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, I just needed to say one more thing.
J.A. Colon if you believe Jerome Corsi than you are really naive. He has been proven to be a liar and not at all credible. So unless you personally know this, don't try and pass that on as fact. It isn't. I just saw the newspaper announcement in Honolulu of his birth. Geez, you guys plain nuts.
I WANT THE TRUTH
I WANT THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOWED
THAT IS ALL I WANT
AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY WILL
AND YES I WOULD BE HAPPY IF BUSH, OR CLINTON, OR McCAIN HAD TO SHOW PROOF. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.
ANY OF YOU PLEASE JUST EXPLAIN WHY IN YOUR OPINION THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T IMPORTANT.
ALL that I see from the "Legal" system is the "BLACK" Code of "justice" Clearly Contortion of the Truth and Constitution. State Supreme Courts seem not to FOLLOW the LETTER of LAW INTERPRETATION instead of EMOTION.
Nurdco
Post a Comment