The U.S. Supreme Court last met on December 15, and won’t return until January 9, when it will hold another conference. On the agenda for that day is whether the Court wishes to hear Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v Mukasey, no. 08-322. This case, which originated in Texas, challenges the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although the entire Voting Rights Act has been upheld before, some specialists in this area of the law feel there is a chance the Court will hear this case. The Court must either agree to hear it, or summarily reaffirm the lower court decision, since it came from a 3-judge U.S. District Court.
Also on the January 9 conference is Berg v Obama, 08-570, the only case concerning presidential qualifications before the Court that is a simple request that the Court accept the case. The other actions on this subject have been requests for injunctive relief.
The only election law case already argued in the U.S. Supreme Court, but which hasn’t had a decision yet, is Bartlett v Strickland (on how to apply the Voting Rights Act to North Carolina’s legislative redistricting process).
And another spin of the Belt Way of Ole Foggie Bottom:
No on political dynasties; No on any Kennedy Senator!
——— Donald Raymond Lake
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT NEEDS TO BE REPEALED.
The Supreme Court ought to force Barack Obama to prove his natural born status. shame on them for not doing so!
Surely Mr Obama should prove to some official
governmental agency that he is eligible for the Presidency, according to the U. S. Constitution, if he has not already done so. I cannot believe the Democrats would let him get this far without “clearing” him on their own. Why won’t any individual say that they have?
However, if, perchance, no one has checked out Mr Obama’s credentials to date, then wouldn’t the 5th amendment come into play – would not the Court’s forcing Mr Obama to basically “testify against himself” by producing paperwork which apparently would prove his ineligibility be, in itself, illegal? Since Mr. Obama is a lawyer with a specialty in Constitutional law, he obviously feels no one can “get” him, at this point or even at a much earlier point. A “lie” might just be able to “fly”, because responsibility for checking out the truth has not been legislated and basic assumed truthfulness is so rare.
A second related area to this fiasco, is the terrible legal state of original birth certificates in this country – for adoptees, their original and adoptive parents, and also for the huge number of individuals with forged or non-existent birth certificates.
In summary: wouldn’t you think that:
1. Every candidate for any public office, as a matter of basic procedure, would be required to show eligibility before his/her name is placed on any ballot?
2. Wouldn’t you think that every person born in this country, would know his real name and the names of his parents at least by age 18 or 21? I never knew adult adoptees in most States NEVER can see their real birth certificates – only legally forged ones!
3. Wouldn’t you think that penalties would be in place to prosecute anyone who perjures hmself relative to birth records, school records, medical records, etc. of his own or of others.
My initial reaction to this whole mess was to blame the Supreme Court, sworn to uphold our Constitution, but just maybe there is nothing even they can do, and Obama and everyone else knows it. EEK
– Mary S.
p.s. I hope and pray that at least one good thing will come from this entire mess – that birth certificates CAN be requested by individuals and others on a need to know basis. Especially in these days of massive illegal immigration and massive identity theft, birth certificates need to be available to anyone at all who has a need to know.