Thread: THE RAMIFICATION OF THE SCOTUS INACTION

THE RAMIFICATION OF THE SCOTUS INACTION

By Lynn Stuter
December 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

On December 5, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), in conference, decided to address Donofrio vs Wells by not addressing it; by simply denying the writ of certiorari.

On December 12, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in conference, decided to address Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, et al, by not addressing it; by simply denying the application to stay the election and denying the injunction disallowing the Electoral College to vote on December 15, 2008.

There are more lawsuits in the works; it is doubtful SCOTUS will give them a hearing either; choosing, instead, to simply side-step the issue without explanation or justification.

What are the ramifications of the SCOTUS refusal to address the issue of the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution?

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional attorney, has written two very good articles on this subject:

In the Shadow of Nemesis
Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

He has also been quoted in these articles on WorldNetDaily:

Eligibility Dispute Story Spreads
Imagine Guru: ‘Certification’ of birth time, locations a fake

After reading these articles, one realizes, of course, that the ramifications will be far-reaching if SCOTUS continues to side-step this issue.

But let’s look at this from another angle.

Barack Hussein Obama has provided us the avenue to do away with a government that is so far out of control that it’s like a car careening down an ice-covered road. You know it’s out of control; you know it’s going to crash; it’s just a matter of when and where.

How, you ask, has Barack Hussein Obama provided us this avenue?

Follow the reasoning here.

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is the judicial branch established by the U.S. Constitution. Granted they are no longer the judicial branch but the legal arm of the statist regime, but that’s a story for another time. Here, we shall stick to the intent of the U.S. Constitution, as established and, at this time, still in force. On January 20, 2009, that may not be the case.

The U.S. Constitution requires all justices to take an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. In refusing to hear Donofrio vs Wells and Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, et al, challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president as required by Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution, SCOTUS has refused their charge to defend the U.S. Constitution in the name of the people of the United States whom they serve. The sum result of their refusal is to declare the United States Constitution null and void. To repeat, the sum result of their refusal is to declare the United States Constitution null and void.

I want to thank “Borderravenâ€

This is not correct, just her opinion. And, it's rappelling, not repelling. Don't anybody hold their breath that these sweeping assertions are now in effect. I've lived through liberal regimes and conservative regimes. Obama just got elected by the Electoral College yesterday, and Congress will receive and record the totals in January. Life goes on.

Reading all that makes me wish it were true.

A lot of people are disappointed in how the election went. This too shall pass.