2 BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENTS - BERG v. OBAMA

[ericire12]

It might be well to consider that if Berg's case has merit then the nine Justices are in a position to exercise a lot of power and change the face of American politics. The system was set up with 3 co - equal branches, but the Judicial branch has been reduced to rulings on porn and Nativity scenes on public property, they got a lot of attention from the Heller case, and would probably be very eager to remind Congress and future presidents that the court has as much clout as they do, and do not have to worry about re election.

Yet, another example of how we have become a judicial monarchy..... Another 5-4 decision with Kennedy deciding the way the country would go for the next 8 years.

[SlideRacker]

They didn't come this far to loose. They will produce any and all information they need. Face it, the only way out of this is for Obama and the people who put him there to be overthrown by force.

[tombogan03884]

They didn't come this far to loose. They will produce any and all information they need. Face it, the only way out of this is for Obama and the people who put him there to be overthrown by force.

Careful there, while what you say may be perfectly correct, you need to be careful what you say on a public website or you may find guys in suits visiting, first your employer, friends, family and neighbors, and THEN you.
That being said, that IS the whole point behind the 2A.

[MikeBjerum]

That being said, that IS the whole point behind the 2A.

That is what I believe is really behind all their bans.  They make it sound noble and naive buy making it as public safety, however they are really afraid of the uprising the Second Amendment was put in place for.

A non responsive and non representative ruler is what our Founding Fathers fought to replace, and they wanted to make sure it never returned.

[tombogan03884]

That is what I believe is really behind all their bans.  They make it sound noble and naive buy making it as public safety, however they are really afraid of the uprising the Second Amendment was put in place for.

A non responsive and non representative ruler is what our Founding Fathers fought to replace, and they wanted to make sure it never returned.

Their baack.

[Sponsor]

[runstowin]

That is what I believe is really behind all their bans.  They make it sound noble and naive buy making it as public safety, however they are really afraid of the uprising the Second Amendment was put in place for.

A non responsive and non representative ruler is what our Founding Fathers fought to replace, and they wanted to make sure it never returned.

What some of the founding fathers thought about gun bans.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

[TAB]

I really, really doubt any of them are thinking about a insurrection... they just want to be able to say:  "see I protected you from the boogie man"   many other reasons, but that is the biggy.

[alfsauve]

Having the weekend and being a bear (or trunk monkey) of slow wit, I figured what's going to happen with this case. 

Obama's lawyers will file a petitions or briefs with the court on why bHO shouldn't have to respond.  Here are some of the points I thought of, and I'm not a lawyer.

1)  bHO will ask for immediate dismisall/denial of the case because the plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to support his contentions.   The burden of proof resetting with the plantiff.

2) bHO takes the 5th and can not be compelled to reply.

3) There has not been any previous trials and the SCOTUS should make their decision based solely on whether the merits for lower court dismissals were appropriate, not on the substance of the claim.

4)  There are no legal statutes involved and as such the lower court had no choice but to dismiss the case.   As does the SCOTUS

I'm sure bHO lawyers have many more points and can state them in more precise legalize.  The long and short as Jaybet says nothing will come of this, until someone can come up with definitive proof that  bHO is not Constitutionally  qualified to serve as President.

[ericire12]

I really, really doubt any of them are thinking about a insurrection... they just want to be able to say:  "see I protected you from the boogie man"   many other reasons, but that is the biggy.

Californication

[Ckott]

Don't get your hopes up guys.