Evaiding The Issue

Custom Search



The Supreme Court is "evading the issue."



help fight the media




Items on this page archived in order of discovery.

Evading The Eligibility Issue

Justice Thomas: "We're evading that one"  (01:16)
In a polite exchange between Justice Thomas and subcommittee chairman Serrano, the eligibility issue comes up with an apparent admission that the court is avoiding it.  Things may not be as they seem though.  Much could be read into this... judge for yourself.

The following exchange occurs, beginning at 50 seconds:


Thomas:  "You don't have to be born in the united states and you never have to answer that question."

Serrano:  "Oh, Really?  So you haven't answered the one that one about whether I can serve as president, but you can answer this one?"

Thomas:  "We're evading that one."

"kyright" on Free Republic notes Thomas’s use of the word "evade" vs. "avoid":

He is very intelligent and very articulate, so I must assume he did this on purpose.  I can’t tell for sure if he was joking about the subject matter or not, but as far as word usage, according to Encarta:

Avoid, evade, or elude?

All three words involve keeping away from a person or thing or keeping a person or thing away from you.  The main difference between avoid and evade is that avoid is neutral in tone, whereas evade implies dishonesty or deception, or at least some sort of ulterior motive.  If you avoid a responsibility, you take measures to prevent it from being necessary, whereas if you evade a responsibility you get out of it in an underhanded or deceitful way."


More On Evading The Issue
Attorney Mario Apuzzo has a few observations about the above video of Justice Thomas' revealing statement.

What does all of this mean in relation to Obama’s eligibility question?  What is the message behind all the joking, laughter, and body language that can be viewed on the video?  From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as president even though there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United States.  Rep. Serrano read the real message of Justice Clarence’s statement and let him know about it, saying "Oh, really."  Rep. Serrano did not like Justice Thomas blaming Congress for the mishandling of the matter so he shoots back at Justice Thomas by telling him the Court failed to answer the Obama eligibility question when it should have but now is answering the question of whether someone who is not born in the United States can sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.  From this comment we can conclude that Congress did not believe that it was its job to answer the question of whether Obama is eligible to be president and expected the judicial branch of government to answer that question.  This is borne out by the many letters that Congressmen wrote to concerned Americans on the question of what was being done to address the issue of whether Obama was eligible for the Presidency.  Justice Thomas then answered that the Court is "evading that one" and giving Congress "another option."  Here we can see that the Court is telling Congress that it avoided addressing the Obama eligibility issue so Congress could resolve it through the political process, giving Congress some other unknown "option" to resolve the crisis.  We can only speculate what that other "option" is at this point.  Needless to say, it appears that both Congress and the Court are angry at each other for the constitutional crisis that each accuses the other to have caused regarding the Obama eligibility question.

The Obama eligibility issue has run its course through the political process.  We can reasonably expect Obama to run for a second term.  We surely do not want to repeat during Obama’s second run for president what occurred during his first.  We cannot reasonably expect to resolve the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii and the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause by way of Americans voting at the polls.  This issue is not going away.  It is dividing our nation and needs to be decided as soon as possible.  There is now no other way to resolve the question of Obama’s eligibility other than through the legal process.  As Chief Justice John Marshall so well taught in many of his important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there is no doubt that the judicial branch of government is well equipped and capable of deciding this critical issue of constitutional law and by doing so will not interfere in the work of the other two branches of government.
Jerry McConnell says, I will begin today by asking the same question that I have asked at least several times before in my columns: Is there even just ONE judge anywhere in the United States with superlative courage, who lacks fear of reprisal or retribution for simply, "telling the truth" and ruling accordingly?  Or have our judicial authorities at the higher levels devolved into catatonic wimps who are afraid to "embarrass" someone in high authority?

In all my life I never imagined that I would hear of a Unites States Army Colonel being afraid of "embarrassing" a high level politician simply by producing a truthful document with accurate personal birth information.  But it happened recently when US Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, the presiding judge in a lawsuit that questions Obama’s natural born status and requests that the original birth certificate be presented as evidence when Judge Lind said "opening up such evidence could be an 'embarrassment' to the president."

So it appears that our United States Army, at least in the person of one Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, has placed in jeopardy the 18-year career of a highly decorated medical officer, Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, over the supposed "embarrassment" of a very possible usurper in our nation’s highest elected office who may not even be eligible to be there.  Is this the sort of justice we will now be faced with in this once Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

Examiner.com NATIONAL edition of December 02, 2010 published an article written by Anthony G. Martin titled, "SCOTUS: petition denied in Presidential eligibility case" which stated, "In a ruling that was issued without comment this morning, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied the petition submitted in the Kerchner v. Obama case involving the question of Presidential eligibility."

This is just the latest in a most puzzling series of requests for information that would lend some closure to many lawsuits before the courts of our land.  If, as Judge and Army Colonel Denise R. Lind, states that opening such evidence would be "embarrassing" to the President, I should think these continuous refusals for clarity would also be overwhelmingly "embarrassing" for our judicial entities throughout our entire nation.

Are we no longer interested in the average person’s status in accordance with the law and only concerned that some exculpatory evidence might "embarrass" another more privileged person of higher standing?  Is our Constitution no longer as stated therein, for WE THE PEOPLE, or has it devolved to, only as long as it doesn’t "embarrass" someone higher up?

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say about these judicial refusals based on possible embarrassment to others than those seeking redress of unfair withholding of aid in their plight.

The total number of incidents such as this latest refusal of a judicial authority, and unfortunately, the highest, must number in the dozens, and lower courts now will be buoyed by this Supreme Court decision not to get involved, and will do likewise, throttling justice in every court in our country.  This only lends credence to the theory that money and power can get away with impunity for even the most serious of violations.  Again; this is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when our Constitution was constructed.

So the ruling, by way of NOT ruling on the issue, gives support and credibility to a wayward person’s efforts to usurp presidential authority by means of cover-ups and refusal to provide information of ANY sort that could reveal his or her true identity.  These widespread and superabundant decisions that are really non-decisions, could set a dangerous precedent for future misdeeds against our government that could survive unpunished due to the inability to acquire personal information from a suspected individual.

As Anthony G. Martin observes in his article cited above, "the nation still has no word from the judicial branch on the all-important subject of what the Framers meant when they specified that a President must be a 'natural-born' U.S. citizen.  In spite of the fact that the matter would be settled once and for all should such (Obama’s closed to public) documents be opened, the Court has decided instead not to issue an order but to allow the question to remain unanswered.  Why?

There is no conspiracy here, but cowardice.  It is clear that the Court knows that for the truth to be made public about Obama’s heritage would risk sending the country into social upheaval and violence in the streets.

Such malfeasance in office of all of these "refusnik" judges does not tend to help bolster a strong government of laws; instead showing weakness in rendering decisions that may, or may NOT, cause public unrest.  My personal thoughts are that a large majority of the people would be so relieved to have closure and settlement to the question that only minor public reactions would occur.  Contrarily, the reverse or current attitude against ruling fairly could spawn at least as much unrest to the public.
Supreme Court Warned Not To Avoid Eligibility
Bob Unruh is reporting that a veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

And he asks whether the justices still are committed to the principle of considering the Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues.

The warning comes from attorney John D. Hemenway, who is representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was eligible under the Constitution's requirements for a president to occupy the Oval Office.

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court.  "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.

"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public.  Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law?  What else would we expect?"

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution.  To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "evading" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court.
Palin/Obama Paper Trails And ObamaMedia Hypocrisy
Stanley Kurtz says the deafening roar of nothingness emerging from the Sarah Palin email trove points up the media’s hypocritical lack of interest in Barack Obama’s pre-presidential record.

Just as Palin’s emails were released, Slate’s David Weigel pointed out that Barack Obama’s State Senate records are not available.  Weigel quotes Obama’s statement to the effect that he didn’t have the staff or financial resources to preserve office paperwork.  As a result, Obama claims, his State Senate records may have been thrown out.

In fact, Obama could easily have preserved his State Senate records had he wanted to.  The papers of many Illinois legislators are preserved at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library.  I know, because I went through many a box there.  The records are in various states of completeness and (dis)organization.  Often, chaotic boxes of papers have been handed over to the archivists with little effort at cataloguing.  Nonetheless, many records from state legislative offices are preserved.

Some of the most interesting revelations in Radical-in-Chief emerge from Jeremiah Wright’s correspondence with Howard Brookins, an Illinois State Senator who was a member of Rev. Wright’s congregation around the time Wright and Obama first connected.  I found the Wright-Brookins correspondence in Brookins’ archived records at the Abraham Lincoln Library.  If Brookins could preserve his records there, Obama could have preserved his as well.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made this point in 2008, saying, "Our investigation suggests Senator Obama could have had his records archived so that they are available to the public, but, to this day, he does not want a complete paper trail of his time in the Illinois State Senate.  Where are his office records?"

Radical-in-Chief is filled with revelations about Obama’s past dug out of archived records.  Yet none of the mainstream outlets frantically searching through Palin’s emails has reported on these revelations, much less disputed my account of their significance.

The revelations in Radical-in-Chief include a reconstruction of socialist conferences Obama himself admits attending in the mid-1980′s; heretofore unknown documents from Obama’s initial stint as a community organizer in Chicago; documents closely tying Obama to a hard-left community organizer training institute; documents detailing Obama’s ties to ACORN and the ACORN-controlled New Party–and revealing his public account of those ties to be false; documents shedding new light on Obama’s foundation work and his sustained political alliances with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright; documents shedding light on Obama’s endorsement by the Democratic Socialists of America in 1996, and much more.

I’m not the only one who’s noticed Obama’s desire to hide his record, as well as the reluctance of mainstream outlets to investigate such sources as do exist.  Obama fan and sympathetic Obama biographer Sasha Abramsky writes:

Much of the media, including his biographers, have concluded that the community organizing period of Obama’s life should be accorded relatively little space, assuming those years simply reflected the radical foibles of a young man trying to find himself.

Abramsky goes on to argue, in opposition to the media’s implicit judgment, that Obama’s community organizing years were actually the key to who he became.  I agree.  Yet the media continues to ignore important documentary revelations from a sitting president’s political past, while devoting enormous attention to the emails of an unsuccessful candidate for the vice-presidency.

Isn’t it obvious that the media’s lack of interest in Obama’s radical past -- noticed even by a supporter like Abramsky -- is a simple case of political protection, not to mention journalistic abdication?

Actually, much of the media, including his biographers, have concluded that the community organizing period of Obama’s life should be accorded relatively little space.
Comments . . .

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010 - 2011
All right reserved