Supreme Court rejects Obama 'birther' case

Full story: USA Today

Without comment, the justices rejected an appeal from three political opponents who claim Obama is ineligible to serve as commander in chief.
Comments
1 - 6 of 6 Comments Last updated Jun 21, 2012

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

I don't understand why so many people are against looking into this issue. Wouldn't we want to know if someone that was elected President wasn't born here? Why do some people act like this is so taboo?
D Daniel

Lake Butler, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This court is filled with 'legislating' judges who are an extention of the executive branch. They do what our Constitution forbids the President from doing.[That is until last Friday, when he bypassed Congress on immegration reform]
A majority of this courts decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. That should tell you how far they have strayed in their decisions. Do not worry, the President's origins will be made extremely clear sometime after his defeat in November. It is ironic these judges are having a conference in Maui. I hope they keep them away from the public records, while they are there.
D Daniel

Lake Butler, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 18, 2012
 
Brittle Fingers wrote:
I don't understand why so many people are against looking into this issue. Wouldn't we want to know if someone that was elected President wasn't born here? Why do some people act like this is so taboo?
See my comment from 06/18/2012 [Sorry about the spelling error on emmigration, I missed it.]
Because

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 20, 2012
 
Brittle Fingers wrote:
I don't understand why so many people are against looking into this issue. Wouldn't we want to know if someone that was elected President wasn't born here? Why do some people act like this is so taboo?
it is patently stupid BS raised by morons. Even the corrupt Roberts-led block understands that they would look like a laughing stock if they gave it any credibility.
Crack

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 20, 2012
 
D Daniel wrote:
.
pot
Patriot

Boulder, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Supreme Court has failed their Duty to US by violating their Oath of Office to Our Constitution - The Highest Law of Our Sovereign Nation and Our safety. They are complicit in High Crimes and Treason by refusing to hold the usurper Barry Soetoro, a.k.a., Barack Hussein Obama accountable.

We, the People and Our Constitution - The Supreme Law of Our Sovereign Nation - are suffering from a frontal attack by globalists/progressives that have used deliberate deceit to get themselves elected to positions of power within Our government with the intent to destroy America from the inside out -'fundamental change’.

REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT & THEIR DUTY

It must first be admitted that the U.S. Constitution never gave to the U.S. Supreme Court the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:

"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the Constitutional intentions of the legislature ... The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the U.S. Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will "equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.

The time has come in our Republic to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and Constitutionally is in the hands of the People of the several states of America--NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the U.S. Constitution.

When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the U.S. Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.

Let me state this clearly: the U.S. Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by Oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty"?

http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin528.h...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••