Love It: Lawsuit Filed On Democratic Party For Them To Define If Obama Is Qualified

[WorldWatcher]

Very True

Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.

You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified

Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit

FDR was elected to his fourth term in 1944, Presidential term limits was the 22nd Amendment passed in 1951.

If the Amendment had been passed and ratified in 1943, then FDR would have remained President but would not have been eligible to run in the 1944 election.

Each Presidential administration is legally a separate entity with all new elections between.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

It's two separate terms of office, doesn't he president take the oath twice if he wins a reelection like congress does?

Doesn't matter....Obama would be grandfathered

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Legal precedent when they changed the rules on number of terms and on secession of the vice president (LBJ would have been allowed two terms of his own)

Obama has already been certified as eligible to be President based on common knowledge that his father was not American. You would have to grandfather him

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Yes, but the earliest ruling wouldn’t be until the Spring/Summer of 2013, after Obama’s reelection and inauguration. Since at the time Obama was elected per the Constitution, he would complete his second term and any changes would apply to the 2016 election.

But given the case law, the fact President Arthur had the same ‘parental configuration,’ and the Court’s likelihood to not grant cert to such an inane case, none of that will be at issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.

You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified

Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit

FDR was elected to his fourth term in 1944, Presidential term limits was the 22nd Amendment passed in 1951.

If the Amendment had been passed and ratified in 1943, then FDR would have remained President but would not have been eligible to run in the 1944 election.

Each Presidential administration is legally a separate entity with all new elections between.


>>>>

That was what I was thinking

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Yes, but the earliest ruling wouldn’t be until the Spring/Summer of 2013, after Obama’s reelection and inauguration. Since at the time Obama was elected per the Constitution, he would complete his second term and any changes would apply to the 2016 election.

But given the case law, the fact President Arthur had the same ‘parental configuration,’ and the Court’s likelihood to not grant cert to such an inane case, none of that will be at issue.

You are really jumping the gun. If this bill, becomes a law goes into effect before the 2012 election obama would have to abide by it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't matter....Obama would be grandfathered

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Legal precedent when they changed the rules on number of terms and on secession of the vice president (LBJ would have been allowed two terms of his own)

Obama has already been certified as eligible to be President based on common knowledge that his father was not American. You would have to grandfather him

What legal precedent involving the Office of the President?


The 22nd Amendment provides that a person can be elected to the Office of the President no more than twice and that if the Vice-President completes more than two years of the term of President for a predecessor they can only run for one additional term.

Kennedy/Johnson were sworn in as President/Vice-President on January 3rd, 1961. Kennedy as assassinate and Johnson was sworn in on November 22, 1963. He'd been Vice President for about 2-years, 10-months - meaning he would be completing only 1-year, 2-months of the remaining term. Under the 22nd he was eligible to complete the Kennedy term and run for 2 additional terms.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Yes, but the earliest ruling wouldn’t be until the Spring/Summer of 2013, after Obama’s reelection and inauguration. Since at the time Obama was elected per the Constitution, he would complete his second term and any changes would apply to the 2016 election.

But given the case law, the fact President Arthur had the same ‘parental configuration,’ and the Court’s likelihood to not grant cert to such an inane case, none of that will be at issue.

The SCOTUS can move at it's own pace. We saw with Bush v. Gore that when the court chooses to they can move very quickly. Normally it does take years for a case to reach the SCOTUS through the district and appeals courts because the SCOTUS wishes to have a well documented case history as part of their review. However when time is of the essence they can decide to take up a case, hear arguments, and issue a ruling with in weeks instead of years.


>>>>

 

[SAT]

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Yes, but the earliest ruling wouldn’t be until the Spring/Summer of 2013, after Obama’s reelection and inauguration. Since at the time Obama was elected per the Constitution, he would complete his second term and any changes would apply to the 2016 election.

But given the case law, the fact President Arthur had the same ‘parental configuration,’ and the Court’s likelihood to not grant cert to such an inane case, none of that will be at issue.

No one on the court gives the case any credence except for Clarence Thomas.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?

Yes, but the earliest ruling wouldn’t be until the Spring/Summer of 2013, after Obama’s reelection and inauguration. Since at the time Obama was elected per the Constitution, he would complete his second term and any changes would apply to the 2016 election.

But given the case law, the fact President Arthur had the same ‘parental configuration,’ and the Court’s likelihood to not grant cert to such an inane case, none of that will be at issue.

No one on the court gives the case any credence except for Clarence Thomas.

No one truly knows if what you say is valid, not even until the Justices make a ruling on the case.

 

[SAT]

I'm referring to the fact that Thomas brought up a case to the court, and nobody was interested.

Obama Citizenship Case Gets High Court’s Attention - Law Blog - WSJ

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm referring to the fact that Thomas brought up a case to the court, and nobody was interested.

Obama Citizenship Case Gets High Court’s Attention - Law Blog - WSJ

I think it was mentioned that this wasn't directed at obama so what you think is relevant really isn't

 

[SAT]

I'm referring to the fact that Thomas brought up a case to the court, and nobody was interested.

Obama Citizenship Case Gets High Court’s Attention - Law Blog - WSJ

I think it was mentioned that this wasn't directed at obama so what you think is relevant really isn't

The point is that it doesn't look like the SCOTUS is going to hear these cases.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm referring to the fact that Thomas brought up a case to the court, and nobody was interested.

Obama Citizenship Case Gets High Court’s Attention - Law Blog - WSJ

I think it was mentioned that this wasn't directed at obama so what you think is relevant really isn't

The point is that it doesn't look like the SCOTUS is going to hear these cases.

Does the supreme court stop hearing all cases until after the 2012 election? According to the OP this has nothing to do with obama but more to do with the law, and Constitutional process.

 

[SAT]

Then the OP is a big fat lie.

Only an idiot would believe that this was just about process.

Although there are a number of racists who pretend to believe it.

Thomas brought this up, and nobody was interested. Not Scalia, not Roberts, not Alito. Nobody.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SCOTUS can move at it's own pace. We saw with Bush v. Gore that when the court chooses to they can move very quickly. Normally it does take years for a case to reach the SCOTUS through the district and appeals courts because the SCOTUS wishes to have a well documented case history as part of their review. However when time is of the essence they can decide to take up a case, hear arguments, and issue a ruling with in weeks instead of years.

Given the Court’s rejection of Kerchner v Obama, there are no such cases which merit an accelerated schedule, or are even worthy of consideration. If a birther case makes it on the docket, which is highly unlikely, it will be the October 2012 term at the earliest.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS can move at it's own pace. We saw with Bush v. Gore that when the court chooses to they can move very quickly. Normally it does take years for a case to reach the SCOTUS through the district and appeals courts because the SCOTUS wishes to have a well documented case history as part of their review. However when time is of the essence they can decide to take up a case, hear arguments, and issue a ruling with in weeks instead of years.

Given the Court’s rejection of Kerchner v Obama, there are no such cases which merit an accelerated schedule, or are even worthy of consideration. If a birther case makes it on the docket, which is highly unlikely, it will be the October 2012 term at the earliest.

My comment was not about the merits of the case, it was in response to "Yes, but the earliest ruling wouldn’t be until the Spring/Summer of 2013, after Obama’s reelection and inauguration."

Given the election will be held in November of 2012, if the SCOTUS takes the case it is well within the realm of possibility that they could take the case and rule very early in the process. The Bush v. Gore reference was to show that when needed the SCOTUS can react in terms of months and not years.



********************************


By the way, with no smartypants intended, I've meant to ask you before about the way you post.

1. Do you not know how to use the quote function, or

2. Do you purposely remove the reference to the previous poster and the link back to the post you are referencing to confuse people, or

3. Do you purposely remove the reference to the previous poster and the link back to the post you are referencing so that people can't just click the link?​

I've never seen anyone, 6-years on two different boards running vBulletin, who posts the way you do and I'm just curious.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. Birthers (all nine of you), lissen up. SCOTUS will not take the case.

 

[SAT]

And they can have their 19th nervous breakdown over it.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Sigh. Birthers (all nine of you), lissen up. SCOTUS will not take the case.

Of course they will take the case. Orly Taitz and USArmyRetard say they will.

 

[Spud]

Irrelevant. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a not a natural born Citizen but rather a statutory citizen. Therefore, he doesn't specifically meet the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 like all other post grandfather clause presidents who were born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.

See the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs Happersett.

Right, quoting said case "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization."

Which is Obama, when was he naturalised?