The Leo Donfrio lawsuit, Donofrio vs Wells, Application for stay, has been denied by the US Supreme Court on Monday, December 8, 2008. Citizen Wells will gather more information before commenting further.
(ORDER LIST: 555 U.S.)
|
08A407
|
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
|
|
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
|
|
|
referred to the Court is denied.
|
|
|
08M32
|
PONEK,
|
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
Citizen WElls 
Well, that’s disappointing. It shows that most of the justices are too scared to touch the issue and that they are willing to let the Constitution be violated.
The decision to deny is a Constitutional Travesty!
What about the writ? Did they just deny the stay?
I will be writing followup articles to this.
I do not want to jump the gun (oops, did I mention gun?).
We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances.
The US Supreme Court is an integral part of this.
I want to gather some more info, but my initial reaction is outrage.
Even the mighty Supreme Court Justices are accountable.
Treasonous is what this is–for all parties involved.
I am letting the “dust settle” and will seek out expert opinions.
I do not intend to sit on my ass or roll over and die.
So will Chief Justice Roberts swear Mr. Obama in?
What about the fact that there are papers verifying his enrollment/registration in Indonesian schools? This proves that he was an Indonesian citizen since you have to be one to enroll in school in that country; the enrollment papers also show his last name as Soetoro.
I don’t understand how they can reject the issue when there’s paperwork to prove that he is not a natural-born citizen?
Good question!
What Leo set out to accomplish has been accomplished, and every Secretary of State in every State will have their internal procedures reviewed now to make sure that they conform to law.
And that is probably only as far the Supreme Court wants to take this particular matter.
On the other hand, Leo’s issue of “dual or multiple nationality at birth” is something that Congress may have to wrestle with.
This issue was first brought up in debates on the floor of Congress enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, father of the Fourteenth Amendment, commenting on March 9, 1866 on the Civil Rights of Citizens (42 U.S.C., Section 1982) clarified the first sentence this way:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
It is likely it won’t take a new decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to remind Congress of what has been said before in their Chambers on this issue, since directives concerning “dual or multiple nationality have been codified by the U.S. Secretary of State.
Remember, if your citizenship results from an Act of Congress, then you are not a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “naturalized Citizen.”
Please, don’t make it any more complicated than that.
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.
…versus…
CERTIORARI DENIED
what does this mean?
Go to the Internet, copy a photo of the original Constitution, print it and write ” fishwrap” across the image in large red letters. Include a very brief hand- written note explaining why Obama’s admission of dual citizenship concerns you. Leave out snarky comments & legal references. Be brief. Send it to each of the Supremes via FedEx.
In the long term, who knows.
It is sad that the Justices take such a tunnel vision approach to evaluating
legalese when behind the exact words lie priciples that are so crucial to
the future of this country.
Let’s wait to hear what their excuse is. If they don’t handle this or any other case, we know they’re a part of this ineligible man getting into office.
As it stands right now Donofrio has compelling historical evidence Chester A. Arthur was also ineligible. That means any law that he may have passed that is still in effect today could be rendered illegal.
This isn’t going away any time soon. SCOTUS MUST address this or we may see some serious backlash.
This is not over by a longshot.There are people left in this country who still care about truth and finding it. Truth seekers are tireless and this wont stop them! This ruling is just a skirmish in the war for truth. Truth always wins because darkness cannot hide from the light. We must not tire and give up
Fishwrap….
Excellent idea!
How does Constitutional Toilet Paper sound???
I’m contacting the tissue printers now. Does $9.99 a roll sound OK?
It seems today is the start to destroying our Constitution. My thoughts are, considering the Judges were sworn in, stating they would uphold the CONSTITUTION and have now refused to do such, It is time for impeachment of all Judges in the Supreme Court. It is time to prove that we are not just a small group of disgruntled Conservatives.
I am so angry, I like the fishwrap idea. R. Emanuel is a good source for dead fish…
Doesn’t this leave the door open to having the Constitution violated left and right? Have we become no different than any other country? When my parents emigrated to the U.S. in 1963, this is not what they visioned for me. It’s a sad day.
Well I’ll be. Looks like somebody already has produced it:
http://constitutiontp.com/
Perhaps we should send a couple of pallates over to SCOTUS.
This is a letter I’ve begun, in order to send to my Congressman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R), Wisconsin.
Please feel free to use what I have written (but rewrite it in your own words, so it sounds fresh, and sounds like you), and send it to your own Senator or Representative.
Make sure that you say nothing about a “birth certificate,” but focus on their “oath of office,” because it ought to make them nervous, and because they already have a long, bogus form letter written to send you, if they think your letter is about Obama’s birth certificate — only proving how woefully ignorant they are.
Hopefully, this realization will motivate a number of good people to run for Congress in 2010, if you understand that you may be as smart as they are, and maybe even smarter!
The pay and benefits are EXCELLENT!
—————————–
On January 6, 2009, the 111th Congress will meet, and all Members will take their Oath to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge their duties. Then on January 8 there will be a Joint session to count the Electoral College votes of the 2008 Presidential election.
This letter gives voice to my concern that during the two days between taking their Oath and their counting the Votes, Members of Congress will face a Constitutional Crisis, a dilemma between their Oath and the Votes of the Electoral College, their Oath and the requirement under Article II of the Constitution that only “natural born Citizen(s) . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
This letter gives voice to my concern that: The 111th Congress knows that never in the history of the United States has a Citizen who has “Dual or Multiple Nationality” on his or her “Date of Birth” (subject to the laws of the United States) been considered by any Act of Congress, legal precedent or historical practice to be a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, regardless of where he or she was born. Why? Because the words “natural born Citizen” apply only to One Day in the Life of a Citizen, the day he or she was “born”
* * * * * * * *
My concern finds its origin in the 39th Congress, where Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, father of the 14th Amendment, commenting on March 9, 1866 on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C., Section 1982), said that the first sentence of the 1866 Act means:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born Citizen.”
And the Supreme Court in:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States is a “Citizen,” but did not say a “natural born Citizen.”
I am concerned that the Donofrio denial will only play into the arrogance of Obama and his legal teams. Next up is the “standing” issue for the Berg case. With the Open Letter to Obama, SCOTUS cases, letters to the justices and various representatives what else is needed to convince the appropriate individuals to require Obama to produce proof of his qualifications. If not the SCOTUS, who is the individual or individuals that can require Obama to prove his qualification?
Don’t get upset yet guys. The supreme probably just dumped on a technicality. There are 4 more cases coming up and all of the cases at the state level.
Maybe the answer is in the electors themselves? They have to certify that Obama is eligible according to the Constitution. So how do they do that and can anything be done with that? What are our options?
Well Goodbye US Constitution…….
Hello to the jackboot government of the Obama Nation!
I’m disgusted to think I gave 26 years of my life in the US Army for a nation of SHEEP who won’t question a Usuper to the seat of Commander -in- Chief!
I think our country is going down a very slippery slop hell-bent on our destruction.
Will Chief Justice John Roberts administer the oath of office to Obama KNOWING he does not meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution?
If so, what crime will he be guilty of?
I morn the future of our grandchildren………
Amen.
Those that know that Obama isn’t eligible to be POTUS are commiting Treason. I pray for the day that this Country comes crashing down ,so those that are responsible are held as traitors. Let the Country fall so we can make a new one with strict laws to follow the Constitution or one is charged with treason.
I don’t mean to sound stupid, but this makes no sense. If no one else will take responsibility for certifying Obama, does that responsibility not automatically fall on the US Supreme Court? Their job is to protect the US Constitution, not refer cases back to a lower court where they know the issue won’t be resolved.
CAN the SCOTUS even BE impeached? I thought they held their offices for life and could not be removed regardless…except by death.
Don’t we also need to write to the Electors? Haven’t they sworn to uphold the Constitution? Aren’t they supposed to verify who they pledge their vote to?
Where can I get a list of the Electors?
Yes, they can be impeached.
“CAN the SCOTUS even BE impeached? I thought they held their offices for life and could not be removed regardless…except by death.”
That’s a good question. An even more interesting question is, can a SCOTUS judge be filed a writ of Mandamus for not doing his/her job?
No one is above the law.
maybe they are saying OBAMA is NOT a citizen, and they don’t agree with DONOFRIO when he doesn’t question OBAMA’s citizenship.
Folks, email this to everyone you know:
——–
The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 – December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns.” This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.
Vettel’s work was clearly influential to the U.S. Constitution, it’s framers’ ideals, and was widely known across the colonies during the late 1700’s.
I thought at first that the petitions were a good idea. But, now I believe a couple tons of individuals letters to the Court everyday would be more effective. If we could each write a letter, multi-copy it, and send one everyday, the very volume of mail would in itself be a profound form of protest. If nothing else, it would keep those pesky clerks busy, and in an “alinsky -type” assault, simply overwhelm the system. What if all those thousands who signed petitions had sent individual letters? Whoa!
I am NOT happy right now!! :0( I thought it would be different this time… bummer
Hang in there.
It ain’t over till it’s over.
Impeachment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase
I believe this issue will come up in about 2-3 years and really be put to the test then. Obama will either have to resign ( in effect becoming the democrates’ Nixon and destroying the party lol) or Congress will rewrite the constitution. If the latter occurs say hello to President Arnold. He will probably be the only one who could beat Obama. Obama will serve only 1 term if that. The democrates royally screwed themselves with this guy.
Corruption at the highest level. Nothing more nothing less. Plain old fashioned corruption.
If the constitution no longer stands then there is no rule of law to adhere to.
Whoo-Hoo CW, they CAN be impeached? Let’s have at it. Scare the robes off them while there’s still time. BO gets in, it’s history for any Rep SCOTUS. (Ever notice how close that anagram is to “SCROTUM”? LOL)
So they have refused to do anything about it? It’s an outrage! If htis fraud is swrn in then he, the SCOTUS and theelctore should all face impeachment, loss of status and possiblycriminal prosecution.
They should have heard thecase if only to create a process for vetting in the future and to address the situation that allowed Roger Calero to be on the ballot in 5states even though it’s widely known he is not a citizen.
If they don’t do something to prevent this fraud there will be cause for a revolution. You would think they would take that into consideration.
CQ
We are all accountable to something.
The Supreme Court Justices are not God.
They are accountable to us and God.
Why should we file our taxes in ’09 if our
President won’t even show us his birth
certificate?
If we all refuse to file, things will change
in DC very quickly on this issue.
Ultimately, money talks!
refuse to file taxes !!
refuse to have taxes , SS, Mcaid, Mcare (all Federal excerised stuff) withdrawn from our paychecks in the first place, send them a message by doing just that on Inaugral Day. don’t wait till April !!
David —
If you want to be entertained about colossal screw-ups in governments, read this presentation at the National Press Club in 2000, at the same confab that is scheduled for today at 1:30.
There are times when tears out to be running down your checks, not from sadness, but from laughter, rollicking laughter!
http://www.devvy.com/edwin_20000710.html
the PDF copied posted here says
the
“stay was denied”
does that mean the rest of the case, the writ, etc.
is also denied?
Is the whole case thrown out, or just the stay?
please advise on SC
decisions on cases. Is that all Donofrio asked for , just a stay? Surely he asked for more? If not, then that is stretching , to ask for something that is a given in the Consitution, is over reaching, in my opinion.
Please comment.
PEOPLE PEOPLE
PLEASE PLEASE
DO NOT PANIC AND DO NOT SEND STUPID THINGS TO THE SUPREME COURT. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED, BUT THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF LEGITIMATE REASONS THIS CASE ENDED UP DENIED. WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE HONORABLE JUSTICES ARE INDEED HONORABLE. WE NEED TO SEE HOW A FEW MORE OF THESE PLAY OUT BEFORE WE ALL GO NUTS. CHECK BACK HERE OFTEN FOR MORE UPDATES. LEO DONOFRIO AND JEFF SCHREIBER ARE ALSO VERY GOOD SOURCES OF REASONED RESPONSES TO ALL THIS. PLEASE DON’T DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE PENDING AND COMING CASES.
Carlyle said:
“DO NOT PANIC AND DO NOT SEND STUPID THINGS TO THE SUPREME COURT. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED, BUT THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF LEGITIMATE REASONS THIS CASE ENDED UP DENIED. ”
And those reasons were??? Perhaps they can enlighten us. But I guess they don’t have to because it would expose the blatant mishandling of the case by not only the Circuit Judge in NJ, but Mr. Bickell, the clerk at SCOTUS.
Once this comes to a head, and IF it comes to a head after the elections, not only will impeachment of the president occur, there’s a good chance SCOTUS justices will be impeached as well.
That doesn’t sound like a bright idea. SCOTUS might want to re-think their strategy on handling these cases.
The MSM calls us a FEW fringe holdouts but as far as I can see A few million and counting.
it’s still listed under ORDERS for PENDING CASES….as opposed to other categories in which the court clearly DISMISSES the writ for cert……check it out.
Click to access 120808zor.pdf
Perhaps more than a few million.
All ready even some democrats are voting in republicans in strong dem countys some all ready waking up to the stupidness of this fraud election
If the millions tell millions, I’m going to assume the patriots will total 40 million. Maybe more.
We cannot let 3 ineligible candidates remain on the ballots. This will set a precidence. And we all know just how “wonderful” that wound up with Mr. Chester Arthur.
@JeffM
There are several:
1. In regards Bickell and mishandling of this case, that is another issue entirely. It is not part of this case. Disciplinary action has been requested and a process is underway on that.
2. As Leo himself said, this case came to the court with significant “baggage”. That could have legitimately torpedoed it.
3. Only the emergency stay was “not granted”. I have seen nothing yet about the meat of the case.
4. Wrotnowski’s case is apparently proceeding correctly through the channels. This is a similar case to Donofrio’s but better written and better put together. It is also sans baggage.
5. Another note of optimism is that the court chose not to explain why. They could have just as readily said something disparaging and put a stake in the heart of most of the upcoming cases. They did not do that. That leaves the door wide open.
6. Finally, there is a credible viewpoint that it is not yet time for the USSC to intervene. i.e. no Federal or Constitutional issue has yet surfaced. Right now it is just the states twisting and turning through their process. Perhaps the correct place for Federal intervention as after the EC meets? When the votes are presented to congress?
Maybe more also. We just need to keep cool, and watch and help where we can. All is not lost yet.
I generally agree.
Carlyle,
Excellent points. I guess we need to hang tight and see what unfolds.
quoting from commenter Bob: “Remember, if your citizenship results from an Act of Congress, then you are not a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “naturalized Citizen.” Please, don’t make it any more complicated than that.”
Incorrect — those subject to 8 USC 1401
are “citizens at birth”, verbatim from the codes.
These Congressional statutes arose originally
from a 1790 framer-era Act which declared
that children born abroad are “considered
as natural-born citizens”, so
“citizen at birth” == “natural born”
How’s that for simplicity, only two classes
of citizenship instead of Donofrio’s
fanciful theory of three classes.
Only three (or less) of the Supremes
deigned to even consider this bogus
theory in conference. Clarence Thomas
doesn’t even have the guts to write
an opinion on the denial-of-stay, which
could have shown up on:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08relatingtoorders.html
You are speaking about the same courts that allow corruption to breed in our country.
Is anyone really surprised with any of this???
Courts at any level can be bought, intimidated, and threatened. It just requires a little more finesse, practice, and skill.
We have the “Chicago hoods” about to control our White House.
–regarding comment “waiting for EC” meets, yes maybe because that is the next stop/step in eligibility? However, consider:
except in the CA case
where the CA SOS certified an electoral delegate who died in 2000 and the CA SOS
declared a candidate ineligible in prior election (precedent), so the CA SOS can’t possibly say they don’t get involved with eligibility, can they?!?
some are saying all 55 CA electoral delegate votes are subject to dismissal because the CA SOS didn’t do their due diligence.
I certainly hope the Donfrio case was denied on procedure and not on the merits of the case itself, and certainly not on grounds of over reaching (as stated above…”correct place for FED intervention is after the EC meets”) doesn’t that one open up a whole new can of worms for Constitutionality compliance. The further one goes down the process, the harder it is to turn back. No?
loquitur, this is not correct.
Historical reference doesn’t equate:
“citizen at birth” == “natural born”
Historical reference equates:
“citizen at birth to citizen parents” == “natural born”
Hence the “Natural” in natural born.
It’s past time that the STATES stand, and demand that the Constitution be protected, and utilized to manage, and limit this oligarchy of an international empire, which we/they are ultimately responsible for. SHAME ON THE INDIVIDUAL STATES FOR CAVING IN!
Loquiter and Jeff M — The 1790 Law was repealed 5 years later, when it was realized that Congress cannot modify the Constitution without amending the Constitution.
So that language was removed from all subsequent legislation.
The current law is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended through 1994.
BTW, Congress has NEVER used the words “natural born Citizen” in any Act of Congress since 1790! Why? Because their authority to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, while the phrase “natural born Citizen” is found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
PEOPLE PEOPLE
PLEASE PLEASE
DO NOT PANIC AND DO NOT SEND STUPID THINGS TO THE SUPREME COURT. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED, BUT THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF LEGITIMATE REASONS THIS CASE ENDED UP DENIED. WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE HONORABLE JUSTICES ARE INDEED HONORABLE. WE NEED TO SEE HOW A FEW MORE OF THESE PLAY OUT BEFORE WE ALL GO NUTS. CHECK BACK HERE OFTEN FOR MORE UPDATES. LEO DONOFRIO AND JEFF SCHREIBER ARE ALSO VERY GOOD SOURCES OF REASONED RESPONSES TO ALL THIS. PLEASE DON’T DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE PENDING AND COMING CASES.
Carlyle, you still wearing those rose-colored glasses??
In the last few months we have been bombarded by onslaughts of un-and anti-constitutionality, obviously to overwhelm and disraught us.
As our Founding Fathers were put into a vice, so are we. What did they do? History shows us what they did: They got busy and communicated amoung themselves and came up with plans, plans that more often than not were effective. We must never give up. The real power is with the people and not the insider one-worlders and their political hack minions. Our enemies fear us more than we fear them for two reasons:
1. There are a lot more of us than them.
2. Our side is the one of truth and righteousness.
The only problem is that many of us don’t realize this.
Under bankruptcy does the Constitution mean squat? All is UCC now! Or am I just stupid? We lost our freedom (back to Egypt all over) to the Internationalists, thicked via the socialist number, tell me different! Robert O.
The Supreme Court filing (application, brief etc.) in the Connecticut Wrotnowski case is soooooo much better than that in the New Jersey Donofrio case (apparently hurredly written before the Nov 4 election) that I don’t think Team Obama should get too comfortable with the Court’s denial of the first case since the second case IS distributed for Dec 12 conference. How the heck can anyone effectively counter this (great work Leo):
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=fb6dc015edba6d8ec689b56a06b79d0b
Bob said:
“BTW, Congress has NEVER used the words “natural born Citizen” in any Act of Congress since 1790! Why? Because their authority to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, while the phrase “natural born Citizen” is found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.”
And you are correct. I posted my explanation on ABC’s site. I hope it explains things beyond the cases (it’s long, but worth it):
Our (that means every citizen) proof (that Obama is ineligible) is in the framer’s intent in the Constitution itself. No birth certificate is required. If anything, Obama’s certificate is masking the real issue. And that is presidential eligibility based on the “Natural Born Citizenship” clause found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
As Donofrio and others have clearly stated in their legal arguments, Obama is not eligible because his father was a British Citizen at birth. Factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com have confirmed this birthright: that Obama was a British Citizen at birth. Regardless of the birthplace or the citizenship of the mother, international laws of immigration has for over 250 years been defined or influenced by Natural Law (i.e. Laws of Nature).
To get a better understanding of Natural Law, one must understand where the framers obtained their ideas on immigration and citizenship. Constitutional scholars will tell you that many ideas regarding Citizenship were obtained by the famous works of world renowned Emmerich de Vattel. In his book called “Law of Nations” published in 1758, Vattel reveals the true definition of Natural Born Citizen:
“The Natives, or Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Here’s the shining light on its definition. Natural Born Citizen = citizen born from citizen parents. It goes a step further to note that the citizen right is transferred from the father, who must also be a citizen.
We must now place the framer’s use of Vattel’s Law into perspective. The original introduction of “Natural Born Citizen” was made by Secretary for Foreign Affairs John Jay in a letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The question is, where did John Jay get his ideas? Like many of the framers, he used the “Holy Grail” of the Constitution…Vattel’s Books of Law. According to U.S. Supreme Court Brief 02-42 (2002):
“The leading international law treatise of the day, Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS, provided that law of nations immunity was an immutable principle of international law…”
…and…
“Vattel’s treatise, published in both French and English, was widely available to the Framers and ratifiers, and it was cited both in the debates in the federal convention and in the state ratifying conventions.”
The Supreme Court itself recognizes the significance and authority of de Vattel’s publications as it pertains to the Constitution itself, in particular his LAW OF NATIONS.
Then there’s the exception, or “Grandfather clause” of Article II:
“…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”
This indicates that the framers knew they were not natural born citizens. They were just U.S. citizens. In fact at the time of signing, they were dual citizens because Britain refused to acknowledge the U.S. citizenship oath (refer to the War of 1812). It was not by choice. So, they put in a clause in Article II to allow themselves to become President.
In the past 210 years there have been at least 3 major U.S. Court or Supreme Court cases that clarify or rule on “Natural Born Citizen” status as requiring at least the father to be a U.S. Citizen, one most notably is United States v. Rhodes (1866), precursor to the 14th Amendment.
More importantly, any law or statute that has been written regarding the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” has either been avoided (as in the case of the 14th Amendment) or repealed (as in the case of the Naturalization Act of 1795).
Add the fact that almost every president born after the U.S. Constitution was signed; with the exception of Chester A. Arthur who burned his papers and lied about his family to cover up the fact his father was a British Subject at his birth; satisfied the eligibility criteria of having both parents as citizens, naturalized or otherwise; it is clear that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.
what’d you expect? the contitutional republic is over. it’s democracy from now on. the contitution is merely a document to be twisted to what BIG BROTHER wants, not to be obeyed, followed or upheld. you sheeps are creeps, but we will need some of you for slaves, some for medical research and some for organ harvesting to supply us with the organs we cannot make with synthethic means for transplanting. don’t worry. there are many in the world’s population to produce our food, supplies, materials, etc. most of you are simply not required for our designs. sorry.
Maybe we should send the Obama mess to the UN and World Court for resolution. Doesn’t this case have International implications…Kenya, Indonesia, Great Britain? Isn’t that what the Libs want anyway? Sorry!
Lets just keep up the pressure on our congressmen to keep this active in the congress. Aren’t most of the democrats in this coutry Americans first, How can they stand by and watch this travesty
Like i said before ,,SCOTUS if you dont get him ,,he will get you.DONT SELL US .
Let us continue to pressure our representatives and SCOTUS to follow the Constitution.
It’s not time to throw them under the bus yet. If the Constitution becomes broken, it is because citizens let it break. And only WE the People will be able to repair the damage.
Do not let the majority rule dictate our fate. Our founding fathers didn’t. Neither should we.
Get use to it, the guy was elected president and will be the president for the next 4 years.
How about directing your efforts to something worthwhile like term limits for congress or no pension for all elected people. Place them all on social security. Why should taxpayers be paying for a bunch of scoundrels that are at best self serving.
He has not been elected president.
Shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel and Veterans get back those Constitutional Rights that they die for and convicted rapists and murderers keep?
Convicted rapists and murderers are given protection from human experiments by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight. In 1992 the U.S. Senate signed and ratified the United Nation, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[3] Its 1994 Index, “… Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” notes that, “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of” [prison] “inmates for medical…..experiments.”! Nineteen (19) times cited are the U.S. Constitution plus its Eighth Amendment’s no cruel and unusual punishment.
“The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.” Then, “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, i.e., the 1994 U.S. Senate Report’s biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects.[5] In 2011 still ignored is this and their also noted past and present, “III. Findings and conclusions”, “K. DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide information and medical followup to those who participate in military research…” and “N. Participation in military research is rarely included in military medical records, making it impossible to support a veteran’s claim for service-connected disabilities from military research.” This is the withheld needed for diagnosis and treatment but experiment identifying evidence. Underlying this Senate Report is the General Accounting Office (GAO) Sept. 1994 U.S. House Report, “Human Experimentation Overview on Cold War Era Programs”![4]
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 Feres case a death due to a 1947 Army barracks fire was determined to be an “incident to service”.[1] In the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY a DOD 1958 “to harm” drug experiment is swept under the same cover of “injuries that `arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.”[2] FIFTY (50) TIMES it cites the Feres Doctrine. Not once mentioned is the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight! Thereby, incidentally lost are those U.S. Constitutional Rights that convicted rapists and murders keep!
In 2005 some in Congress made an attempt to get the biological and chemical portion of this withheld needed for treatment evidence, e.g., H.R. 4259 the “Veterans’ Right to Know Commission.” It died! It is now a from 1944, 67 years of U.S. Congressional talk with no Feres Doctrine [1] and its STANLEY [2] “to harm” correction. During the 1994 reported past, hundreds of thousands of the “to harm” service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire. Then Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving and future records! Overlooked by many in Congress is their Oath of Office to defend the U.S. Constitution, our “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all”, their U.S. Constitution Eighth Amendment protection of convicted rapists and murderers [3] with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!
As in the GAO and U.S. Senate’s reported past, these “military research” [5] “incident to service” [1] activities are conducted under the ongoing secrecy cover of our ‘national interests’, e.g., WWII, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Do not the U.S. Senate’s stated Department of Defense (DOD) “EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM” [5] continue? Please hold your members in the U.S. Congress accountable for giving back to those that serve their Constitutional Rights!
David Marshall
REFERENCES:
[1] 1950 – Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html
[2] 1987 – U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html
[3] 1994 – U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” See “Index of “1994 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”
[4] 1994 – GAO September 28, 1994 “Human Experimentation Overview on Co1d War Era Programs” [PDF] T-NSIAD-94-266 archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152601.pdf
[5] 1994 – December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.