Supreme Court Shirks, States Proceed, on Presidential Eligibility Issue

By Gina Miller
DakotaVoice.com

Our state leaders are really stepping up to the plate under the realization that those in the federal government cannot be relied upon to follow or uphold the United States Constitution, so the state leaders are taking action to do so themselves.  We’re seeing flurries of legislation at the state level that seek to uphold our country’s immigration laws.  We’re also seeing states challenge the unconstitutional federal health care deform law, as well as states proposing anti-Shariah legislation to prevent the spread of unconstitutional Islamic Shariah law in America.

We’re also seeing states propose legislation that would force potential presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president of the United States before being allowed on the ballot.  This is in response to the criminal negligence that was displayed by all relevant, acting authorities during the 2008 presidential election, which saw Barack Obama avoid establishing his eligibility to hold the office of president.

As World Net Daily reports, New Hampshire has become the thirteenth state to propose such legislation,

“Proposals to demand evidence of eligibility from presidential candidates have hit the 13th state this legislative season.

According to reports in New England, the chairman of the New Hampshire Elections Law Committee said a proposal will be considered to require that candidates provide a birth certificate giving evidence of their status as a natural-born citizen as well as an affidavit swearing they meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirements that presidents be 35 years old and have lived in the U.S. for 14 years.

State Rep. David Bates of Windham said in the report, ‘They need to produce a certified copy of the long form of their birth certificate and an affidavit swearing to residency.’

New Hampshire voters take pride in launching candidates for the White House as they hold the nation’s earliest primaries.”

The one stain on New Hampshire’s proposal is that state lawmakers appear to be squeamish about making the law apply to the 2012 election.  As WND reports,

“Bates said in the report that the measure is not aimed at Barack Obama, whose 2008 election and presidential tenure still is clouded by unanswered questions about his qualifications under the Constitution’s additional requirement that a president be a natural-born citizen.

Bates said in order to avoid ‘a circus,’ he might suggest that the bill be effective in 2013, after the next election cycle during which Obama presumably will seek another four years in office.”

So, here’s the bottom line in holding Obama accountable to the requirements of the Constitution: government officials are afraid.  Why would Mr. Bates be afraid of a “circus” resulting from the upholding of the constitutional requirements for presidential candidates?  This is really disgusting.  And, although I’m glad New Hampshire is proposing the legislation, what’s the point if they’re not going to make it apply to Obama, as well as all other potential candidates?

This reminds me of the words of the fake conservative Mike Huckabee,  who said that there is no need for legislation that would require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility, because it would be seen as “a swipe” at Obama.

So what?!  It’s time to quit coddling the communist in the White House!  By all indications, that man is a fraud!  Whatever it is that he’s hiding about his past, it’s major—a deal-breaker!  He has private lawyers who are fighting all the court challenges to his eligibility.  He’s fighting like a cornered wild animal to prevent his past from being made known.  What is this anti-American stooge hiding?!

We also see the United States Supreme court shirking its duty to uphold the Constitution in regards to Obama’s very doubtful legal status to be president.  World Net Daily’s Bob Unruh reports on the latest outrage in the Obama eligibility charade, as the Supreme Court refused a hearing of one of the longest-running court challenges to Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president.  Mr. Unruh writes,

“An attorney who has been working with a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president says it is appalling the Supreme Court justices are allowing the constitutional rule of law to be destabilized by their ‘avoidance behavior,’ and it’s even worse that two of Obama’s appointees apparently participated in the recent case conference.

‘Their defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don’t really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled,’ said Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister case.

‘The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns,’ he told WND today.

It was just a day earlier the Supreme Court posted its March 7 ‘orders list’ in which the case, ‘10-678 Hollister, Greg S. V. Soetoro, Barry et al,’ was refused a hearing in the court.

The case petition had argued, ‘We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter. … A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.’”

As Mr. Unruh reported, it seems that Obama Supreme Court appointees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the discussion of this case, despite a pending motion for them to recuse themselves,

“When the appeal first was denied without comment in January, the attorneys submitted a petition for rehearing because the two court members who owe their lifetime appointments and significant income to Obama’s appointments – Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – apparently participated.

The two justices apparently took part even though there was a pending motion for them to recuse themselves from the case.

The Supreme Court then granted the request for a rehearing on the issue. But Monday’s notice turning away the case not only did not address the motion to recuse, it also did not include a notation – present in other cases when court members did not participate – on whether Sotomayor and Kagan sounded off on the eligibility of their benefactor.”

Those two women should be removed from the Supreme Court if Obama is found to be ineligible to be president, and they certainly have no business being involved in any case that would determine his eligibility.

It is truly surreal watching court after court refuse to allow Obama’s past to be put on stage during a trial.  The massive effort underway by those in power to keep Obama’s past hidden is astonishing and despicable to see.

Going hand-in-glove with the courts are those in the media who viciously attack the millions of us who question Obama’s legal status as president.  They attempt to say we’re just crazy for demanding Obama prove his constitutional eligibility to be president.  Yeah.  What could be crazier than demanding our Constitution be upheld?

I can understand the desperation of those on the Left in seeking to protect Obama from the consequences of his hideous actions against our country, but what really sickens me are those on the Right who feel the need to cower under the question of Obama’s eligibility.  Mike “RINO” Huckabee is not the only high-profile supposed member of the Right to take the leftist stance on the question.  John Boehner and Michele Bachmann have both recently played soft on the issue, as well.

Michele Bachmann said that we should take Obama at his word, and John Boehner basically said the same thing.  Take him at his word?!  Do I really need to point out the ridiculousness of that statement in regard to this situation?  Putting aside the fact that it would be hard to tally up all the lies Obama has told, since when do we conduct legal transactions based on someone’s word?  You don’t prove your constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president of the United States by simply saying you’re qualified.  Try just “giving your word” about your personal information the next time you want to get a passport or renew your driver’s license, and see how that works for you.

It looks like it’s going to be on the states to step up in the next election to stop Obama from being allowed on the ballot if he is unable to prove his credentials.  I hope that as the second half of this wicked administration unfolds, more and more members of the state and federal governments will be emboldened to fearlessly state the truth about the obvious absence of Obama’s proof of constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States.

Obama must not be allowed to squat for a second term in the presidency.  I don’t believe our country could survive another four years of the Marxist Obama administration.

Gina Miller, a native of Texas, is a radio commentator and disc jockey. She also works with her husband installing and repairing residential irrigation systems and doing landscaping on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.