Not eligible under new Constitution
New Constitution takes effect when President is sworn in 2013
I don’t know where the press has been on this one, but there will be a new Constitution to go into effect when the new President is sworn in 2013. The phrase “natural born citizen” is dropped in a vote October 15.
Is this the solution for President Obama’s eligibility challenges? Apparently not because President Obama would not meet the requirement that he be a citizen and resident of the country of Georgia for 5 years. Still, it’s an option for the future.
Commies.
Can anyone help me find a full list of lawsuits against Obama or trying to stop the election, stop the Electoral College from voting or stop the inauguration? I have said (based on my memory) that most of the lawsuits were attempts to stop the election, stop the Electoral College, stop the Congress from confirming, Etc. But my memory is no longer good enough, and I have to reference the lawsuits. Can anyone help me?
Would this Kenya BC help?
Last updated Sept. 13th, 2010 (pdf):
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf
I was going to post the list also. This is the work of Tes from Politijab and Fogbow as well as her own mostly dormant site, “What’s your Evidence”. She is a lawyer who meticulously researched the cases to construct the list, and updates it when appropriate. Fogbow has extensive postings on most cases, including transcripts for the major cases, and dockets and links to documents for most of the cases.
(She’s my friend, and I like to make sure she gets credit.)
[The following comment is in error, Doc.]
I INTERRUPT THIS BLOG FOR A SPECIAL NEWS BULLETIN.
BARNETT APPEAL TOSSED OUT..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39292211/BARNETT-KEYES-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-9th-CIRCUIT-26-Submitted-ECF-Answering-brief-for-review-TransportRoom-26-0
It is submitted that counsel’s attempts to demonstrate that the District Court was prejudiced and biased against her are utterly frivolous, and completely without merit. See also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F.Supp.2d 1363 (M.D. Ga 2009).
Finally, the attempts by the Barnett Appellants to overturn the District Court’s decision on the grounds that the court was biased or intimidated are based on arguments which are false, frivolous and fanciful.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=13099
This is the answer to the appeal brief, not the Court ruling. Oops….
I had some questions about it, nbc. I took the person’s word for it that it was the ruling but have been trying to verify it but have not gotten a good verification.
Yeah, it says “appellee’s’ answering brief” right on it. I should have looked first.
Oh well, I guess we’ll have to wait another week or two for the denial
Absolutely. Excellent work and birther kryptonite.
Yep.
The BBC asks “Who, what, why: What happens when a country loses its ‘birth certificate’?”
“Fiji has admitted losing the legal document confirming its independence from the United Kingdom. But does that threaten its existence as a state?”
Read about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11565853
The happy ending: “In the same way that losing your birth certificate does not mean you cease to exist, the legitimacy of a state does not rest on a piece of paper, agrees Prof Roda Mushkat.”
Whew!