The very latest news on the President Obama elligibility issue.

All the legal wranglings don't matter. Yes, he may not be a "natural born" American citizen and the birth certificate may not be valid. It matters not. He's in office and will stay there till 20 Jan. 2013 or 2017.
"..shall not be infringed."

I remember back in history (heller vs. DC 08)last year scalia said he would never infringe on hunters rights?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????what about the non hunters sam?
DONT TRUST KIDS FROM CHAMBERSBURG IN TRENTON NJ,he is a berg kid! trust me

—Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
March’s music: ♪Champagne♪ by Kenny G
Throw-away tools of war

1. The court hears the case.
2. Records show that the term "African" isn't used on any certificates of live birth until 1968.
3. Certificate is deemed a forgery. Obama is impeached for being "African" instead of Negro. (That's how it'll be spun by the lib MSM)
4. Rioting in cities across the US.
5. Martial Law declared by Biden.
6. ???

Just a theory of what could happen. Not saying it will. I however, do not think he is legit. I'm still waiting to read his thesis.

bump

I haven't let this go either. Keep up the good fight.

-------------------------------------------------------
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” - Sam Adams

But what does it say about the rest of the justices when they refuse to hear any of the cases presented to them on this subject.

They are either cowards or politically motivated. Something the US Supreme Court was never suppose to be.

Their function is to rule on Constitutional issues not political ones.

What issue is more Constitutional than a person's eligibility to be president, the highest office in this country. Does this person have the Constitutional qualifications to hold that office?

A simple question that the US Supreme Court has been ducking for several months now...question is why?

Lawyer confronts justice about prez's qualifications

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Antonin Scalia

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

While the requests have been heard "in conference" by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

No explanations on the court's response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood "right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them."

She said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama's stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks," she said. "I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama's strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four," she said.

She then bought Scalia's book and waited in line to get it autographed.

"I gave him the books to sign and asked, 'Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.' He said, 'Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others.'"

Taitz' latest effort is a case of Quo Warranto submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

The plaintiffs allege Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before Jan. 20, 2009.

"Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'"

Taitz said Americans should flood Holder's office with calls, e-mails and faxes, urging him to take action on the case.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag