Probably the Final Lawsuit Challenging President Obama’s Qualifications has U.S. Supreme Court Conference Date

What will probably be the final lawsuit on whether President Obama meets the Constitutional Qualifications to be President has a conference date in the U.S. Supreme Court. The lead plaintiff is Ed Noonan, who won the American Independent Party non-binding presidential primary in California last year. Two other plaintiffs are individuals who ran in major party presidential primaries last year. The case is Noonan v Bowen, 12A606.

This case was filed in the California Supreme Court on December 4, and on December 6 that Court refused to hear it. In the California Supreme Court it was case S207078. The attorney who filed the case, Orly Taitz, then asked the U.S. Supreme Court for injunctive relief. She did that on December 11, and on December 13 Justice Anthony Kennedy denied it. Then, the case was refiled in front of Chief Justice John Roberts on December 26, and he has put it on the Court’s conference of February 15. Of course, that is almost a month after Inauguration Day.


Probably the Final Lawsuit Challenging President Obama’s Qualifications has U.S. Supreme Court Conference Date — No Comments

  1. I know it is a long shot, so long it is out of this world, but if it is ruled that Obama was not qualified to run for President, would all legislation he signed, all appointments he made, all executive orders he issued, etc, be instantly invalidated?

  2. When Congress counted the electoral votes in both January 2009 and January 2013, and accepted all the electoral votes received by Obama, that was the last word on the subject. It is Congress’ duty, not the duty of any court, to decide if someone meets the constitutional qualifications to hold federal elective office. It is the same for Congress; Article One, section 5, of the US Constitution says “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members.”

    The US Supreme Court has no role to play, once Congress has accepted the Electoral College votes, in determining presidential eligibility. One can ask, “Well, suppose they did?” but that is extending theoretical questions so far into abstraction that no answer to the question seems possible.

  3. 2 –

    Oh c’mon, Mr. Winger. You’re resorting to quoting the Constitution?

    Have you just given up on being a real natural born American, or what?

  4. I beg to differ with Justice Winger.

    Natural born = AT BIRTH allegiance to a regime.

    Naturalization = AFTER BIRTH change in allegiance to a regime to another regime.

    Sorry – NO foreign related folks allowed to be Prez / CIC of U.S.A. military forces for OBVIOUS 1787 reasons — ALL of the EVIL hereditary stuff in Europe for centuries and centuries before 1787.

    i.e. NO folks having ANY allegiance to a foreign regime can be a U.S.A. Prez.

    Any thing new since 1787 ???

    Art I, Sec. 5 obviously refers ONLY to the judging qualifications of Congress members — due to history — the EVIL rotted English kings trying to control who got elected to the English House of Commons in 1200s – 1600s.

    12th Amdt – Congress ONLY counts the E.C. votes.

    See 20 Amdt, Sec. 3 for a Prez who is NOT qualified to hold the office.

    Gee – what nation-State ALLEGIANCE did Obama have the second he was born WHERE EVER he was born ???

    Clue – his father/ daddy/ papa was a Brit Empire citizen / subject on Obama’s birthday in 1961.

    ANY SCOTUS folks who are *politically correct* appointed robot party hacks ???

    How many flippant New Age Legal history MORONS are on this list with their MORON cracker jack box legal history comments ???

    How many Federal/State/Local officials have been removed from any elected/appointed office after they took office for being NOT qualified to hold the office ???

    See the VERY OLD *quo warranto* stuff in English LAW — now one more Civil Action.

  5. Demo Rep,

    A child born in Vietnam in 1970 of an American soldier and a Vietnamese woman is not an American citizen merely because his father is American. He is a citizen of the country in which he is born.

    A child born in one of the member states of the United States of a Kenya father and an American woman is not a citizen of Kenya merely because his father is Kenyan. That is not the law in this country and has never been. He is a citizen of the state in which he was born and by virtue of the 14th Amendment, a citizen of the United States.

    You are an idiot. Simply said. No further explanation needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *