Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Respondents Waive Right to Respond..Petition-Writ of Cert.to(SCOTUS)..Kerchner etal v Obama etal
A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers ^ | 11-6-10 | Mario Apuzzo

Posted on 11/06/2010 2:43:29 PM PDT by STARWISE

Full title

Respondents Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit

###

There is new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket today with an effective date on the docket of 3 Nov 2010.

Document HERE.

1. The Respondents named in our Petition have waived their right to respond.

2. The Western Center of Journalism has filed a motion for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of our petition.

To read the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 see this link.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; hussein; ineligible; kerchner; lawsuit; mario; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Looking forward to some legal expert deciphering.
1 posted on 11/06/2010 2:43:33 PM PDT by STARWISE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; ...

.. Ping!

Other news from the 9th Circus:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

California court throws out lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship (Keyes)
By Denny Walsh
Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2010

Excerpt:

The court did not deal with the citizenship issue, instead ruling that the California secretary of state, who oversees elections, and the state’s Electoral College members are not legally responsible to certify presidential candidates as qualified for the office.

Under the terms of the U.S. Constitution’s 12th Amendment, that responsibility rests solely with Congress, a unanimous three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/26/3131570/california-court-throws-out-lawsuit.html#ixzz14Xm5Eh7W


2 posted on 11/06/2010 2:52:49 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; misharu; butterdezillion; maggief; Danae; LucyT; Fred Nerks; RobinMasters; ...
The SCOTUS Docket was updated today regarding the Natural Born Citizen questions that Mario Apuzzo has in front of the court.

Does this mean that Obama has chosen to NOT reply to those questions?

And does this mean that Kreep has successfully leeched onto Mario's case? Will Kreep drag it down?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

3 posted on 11/06/2010 3:22:30 PM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

This is always too much for me to decipher as well. BO’s attys just decided they’re not going to answer?? Then what?

Then the 9th Circuit says it’s up to congress to determine elegibility? Oy vey....


4 posted on 11/06/2010 3:23:46 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater
investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

I always found it interesting that Hussein and Hill were two of the six people on that committee.

5 posted on 11/06/2010 3:30:59 PM PDT by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

. . . . Update.

[Thanks, Future Useless Eater.]

6 posted on 11/06/2010 3:34:36 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Basically, it means nothing. Every Respondent can choose to respond to the Petition or not. The option remains, should the Court grant certiorari, to file a responsive brief. The Respondents most likely assume the Court will NOT grant certiorari, so it’s not worth it to them to invest the time/costs to prepare a response.

Actually, the Western Journalism group’s interest in filing an amicus brief is interesting.


7 posted on 11/06/2010 3:35:00 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azishot

Congress Critter(s) say that it is up to the courts to settle Obama’s eligibility?

The old run around.


8 posted on 11/06/2010 3:55:09 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks, Red Steel. No one is accepting the responsibility because they don’t want to be held accountable. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with a usurper.


9 posted on 11/06/2010 4:07:46 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Actually, the Western Journalism group’s interest in filing an amicus brief is interesting.


"Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a "natural born citizen," cannot be disregarded "by means of a popular vote of the people."

Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, "requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures."

"Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president … are not required to prove any eligibility."

Kreep continued, "Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law." "

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=223717

10 posted on 11/06/2010 4:13:04 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Seems, not surprisingly, a might disdainful .. like
they’re flicking a gnat.

What’s the judge do with that?


11 posted on 11/06/2010 4:47:55 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Then our new Congress had best install certification
and confirmation of eligibility for POTUS as one of
their Constitutional duties, if that’s the way it’s
gonna be.


12 posted on 11/06/2010 4:51:31 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; LucyT
It would seem to me that the Supremes must not ignore petitioners in this case given the magnitude of injury to citizens of the United States.

Kirchner and Apuzzo have jumped through all the legal hoops to get to this point. The case is "seasoned." SCOTUS might as well take action now. Soon it will be January 1, start of the next Presidential election cycle. The public will not let this go on a second time.

13 posted on 11/06/2010 4:56:33 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

It’s probably more common than not for Respondents NOT to file an opposition to the Petition. Why bother unless Certiorari is granted? Both the Petition and any opposition take a lot of lawyer/staff time, and printing SCOTUS briefs is costly. Why do it unless you have to?

With odds of any given case being granted Certiorari @ 8-10%, it’s just the cost effective way to proceed. Then, IF certiorari is granted, they can respond. (and they sure know what the track record of the courts has been on this issue)


14 posted on 11/06/2010 4:58:01 PM PDT by EDINVA (SC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I see .. thanks, Ed.


15 posted on 11/06/2010 5:14:22 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

Apuzzo has put together the best case of all. If any are likely to succeed - it is his case.


16 posted on 11/06/2010 5:21:15 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Seems, not surprisingly, a might disdainful .. like
they’re flicking a gnat.

What’s the judge do with that?


That’s one way to look at it, another is: “we trust that you esteemed ladies and gentleman will reach a just decision without any input from us.”

The very first Obama eligibility suit to reach the Supreme Court for cert conference was Berg v Obama. Everyone thought that Justice Souter had given Obama a date to show his original birth certificate, but Obama’s attorneys didn’t respond to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, just like this petition, and the Berg suit was denied by the Court.
It takes the concurrence of four of the nine justices to grant a petitition and to hear an appeal before the full court. That is known as the Supreme Court’s tradition of “the rule of four.”


17 posted on 11/06/2010 5:28:21 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; LucyT

BUMP for the new year!


18 posted on 11/06/2010 5:31:10 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

thanks for the ping


19 posted on 11/06/2010 6:29:38 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Munz

bump


20 posted on 11/06/2010 7:09:36 PM PDT by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a “natural born citizen,” cannot be disregarded “by means of a popular vote of the people.”

Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, “requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures.”

“Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president … are not required to prove any eligibility.”

Kreep continued, “Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=223717

I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.

This is the part that the opposition will try to rebut:

“...the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate.”

They will try to say that since there is no controlling authority, Law — whatever(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)— that it IS up to the voters to vet the candidate(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)... or something along those lines.

Of course it’ll be BS... but they will try!

STE=Q


21 posted on 11/06/2010 7:43:01 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Most respondents do not file a response because in most cases, the petition is going to be dismissed anyway.

The defendant not responding really doesn’t mean much.

If the USSC requests or orders the respondent to file a response, then this case will get nation media attention in a big way.

Kreep is probably the guy with the most on the ball on this issue, so if the petition is dismissed, the members of the USSC just isn’t going to get involved.


22 posted on 11/06/2010 9:13:33 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
With odds of any given case being granted Certiorari @ 8-10%,

Are you kidding? It's not even one percent and going lower almost every year.

23 posted on 11/06/2010 9:15:27 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q; Red Steel

Wonder if the last SOTUA will have any impact???


24 posted on 11/06/2010 9:51:48 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Kreep has got to make the justices squirm as they read this (regardless of whether they accept Kirchners’s relatively weak standing as a retired military officer) and this is also a preview for the justices of Kreep’s 9th Circuit case in which he makes the same irrefutable argument (IMHO) but which will not arrive at the Supremes until much later.

Aren't the courts jealous of their prerogatives? Are the courts going to take from the constitution and from themselves the power to determine the constitutional eligibility of a candidate for president and give it over to the “whims of the majority”? I hope not.

Judge Carter, in his ruling, had to bend over backwards to refute Kreep’s excellent oral argument which left Carter “undecided” at the conclusion of the hearing. I hope Kreep gets invited to present this argument to the Supremes.

25 posted on 11/06/2010 10:34:45 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Well, the % of cases accepted depends on what one is counting. Overall, the acceptance rate is 1-2%, but if you separate the in forma pauperis cases from those prepared by attorneys, I’m pretty sure the latter is still around 8%. The instant case falls in the latter category and it is that group to which I was referring.

“According to the “Chief Justice’s Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary” for 2009, approximately 80% of petitions for writ of certiorari also file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Only 20% of the cases are filed in the Supreme Court’s paid docket.

“2008 Petitions:

“6,142 in forma pauperis docket (79.4%)
1,596 paid docket (20.6)
7,738 total 2008

“2007 Petitions:

“6,527 in forma pauperis docket (80.4%)
1,614 paid docket (19.6%)
8,241 total 2007

“Approximately 50% of the petitions granted cert originate in the in forma pauperis docket; however, since the pool of cases for that docket it much larger than for the paid docket, paid cases are statistically more likely to be accepted on appeal.”

Here’s the source:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_in_forma_pauperis_petitions_are_filed_with_the_US_Supreme_Court_each_year


26 posted on 11/06/2010 10:40:54 PM PDT by EDINVA (SC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Kreep has got to make the justices squirm as they read this

They should squirm. Good to see you back.

27 posted on 11/06/2010 11:04:10 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; butterdezillion; maggief; azishot; EDINVA; Red Steel; circumbendibus; Frantzie; ...

Apparently, Mario TURNED DOWN Kreep’s help!
Here is what Kreep says in his Amicus...

...
THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF AMICUS CURIE’S INTENTION TO FILE THIS BRIEF. THE PETITIONERS [that would be Kerchner, et al] HAVE REFUSED AND THE CONSENT OF THE RESPONDENTS IS BEING LODGED HEREWITH.

(and...)

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS (that would be Mario) HAS WITHHELD CONSENT; COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT (Obama’s lawyer) HAS CONSENTED TO THE FILING OF THIS BRIEF.


I’d say that Mario sees Kreep as a bumbler that trashes all the eligibility cases he touches.

And the White House seems to agree.


28 posted on 11/06/2010 11:20:59 PM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA; STARWISE
"so it’s not worth it to them to invest the time/costs to prepare a response."

Wouldn't that be amazing...the govt (i.e. attorneys representing Barry) wanting to save taxpayer money. Imagine.

"Actually, the Western Journalism group’s interest in filing an amicus brief is interesting."

Yes, it is.

29 posted on 11/07/2010 12:02:18 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; STARWISE

Western Center for Journalism, who are they?


30 posted on 11/07/2010 1:52:50 AM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; LucyT; STARWISE

Is this the same group? hmmmm?
Couple of familiar names...
______________________________________________________

About WCJ
Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WorldNetDaily.com website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), The Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring investigative journalism for eighteen years.

It first made its mark following the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the Clinton presidency. Officially ruled a suicide by authorities, reporter Christopher Ruddy–with assistance from the Center for Western Journalism–unearthed evidence that shouted, “cover up!” No matter how hard they tried to conceal the real cause of Foster’s death, Ruddy’s dogged investigations clearly showed that the suicide ruling was phony.

Today the Center is led by columnist and veteran broadcaster Floyd Brown. The Western Center for Journalism is a vigorous watchdog that keeps a check on government abuse and the media. The Center believes strongly in open public debate. It also believes that informed public debate requires quality journalism and reporting.

The Center is working to provide quality journalism and reporting by exposing bias and falsehoods in the mainstream media so that true information will be available. The Western Center for Journalism website covers a wide variety of topics from media bias, to media industry news, and articles about online news


31 posted on 11/07/2010 1:01:16 AM PST by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

“Under the terms of the U.S. Constitution’s 12th Amendment, that responsibility [to certify presidential candidates as qualified for the office] rests solely with Congress, a unanimous three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared.”

How did they arrive at that interpretation? The 12th Amendment is silent on the matter of who decides who is constitutionally qualified. Leaving it up to Congress is tantamount to saying the constitutional qualifications are subject to political interpretation. However, the qualifications are quite clear and objective. There is no need or room for political interpretation.


32 posted on 11/07/2010 1:15:42 AM PST by skookum55 ("We can give up on America or we can give up on this president ...." D. D'Souza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q; Red Steel
Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.

I'm not a lawyer either, but the second sentence above seems very poorly written to me.

... to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, ...

What kind of political power is he talking about? If he is talking about elective power, of course these candidates don't have any to be stripped from them. Maybe he should refer to the power they would have had if they had won.

Or is he talking about the political power they should have to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot?

.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?

Apparently Kreep is trying to say that some non-winning candidates may have been harmed because they might have won if non-eligible candidates had been kept off the ballot. I guess he's trying to say several other things too, in the same sentence, but this needs to be spelled out more precisely.

33 posted on 11/07/2010 3:54:02 AM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus
It would seem to me that the Supremes must not ignore petitioners in this case given the magnitude of injury to citizens of the United States.

They have so far. This isn't the first time a petition has reached the Supreme Court. In every one of the previous cases, and there have been at least two or three I believe, the court has declined to hear the case.

34 posted on 11/07/2010 4:30:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Lol

Now that was a legal smackdown!


35 posted on 11/07/2010 5:43:15 AM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Mario Apuzzo is a good guy and he put together the best eligibility case filed. He covered every angle, had perfect timing to almost teh second on his filings, amneded his filings and did his best to box the muslim and congress in. Kreep needs to stay away.

I always thought from the day it was filed that Mario’s case might be the one. He has worked away quietly like a little church mouse nibbling away at the ropes keeping this major fraud wrapped up. His case has slowly moved through the courts.

The only way Mario’s case gets shot down is if the judiciary is totally corrupt and I think we know that answer. However, the Dems may finally want to rid themselves of this fraud. So maybe we may get judges to do their job.


36 posted on 11/07/2010 10:06:00 AM PST by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

How is your buddy and his auto job over in Germany? The guy who is miserable? And all you other buddies going broke. Hopefully the Germans will send him home. They do not need retread Detroit incompetent FU’s to wreck quality German products.

Thank you hero Obama. Old timers like you are not gonna have a plug nickel once the Kenyan usurper is done with seniors and baby boomers.

Personally - I do not give a s*it anymore because most people are idiots who watch TV. Thank goodness - thanks to hardwork, intelligence and focus - I am a lot better hedged than most folks. I feel sorry for many but most are stupid idiots who watch TV.


37 posted on 11/07/2010 10:18:37 AM PST by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
How is your buddy and his auto job over in Germany? The guy who is miserable? And all you other buddies going broke. Hopefully the Germans will send him home. They do not need retread Detroit incompetent FU’s to wreck quality German products.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

38 posted on 11/07/2010 10:43:52 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wideminded; Red Steel
.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?

============================================================

I don't know if Kreep is aware of it but he appears to be drawing a distinction between a democracy -- or the rule of the majority -- and a republic -- the Rule of Law.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution To The United States reads:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." (emphases mine)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

So the answer to your question could be that Kreep is referring to "law inherent in the Constitution" as you put it.

He would seem to be arguing for A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- Rule of law" -- as opposed to a Democratic form of government: the "whims" of the mob... sometimes referred to as a "mobocracy."

If people can just vote-in whoever they want to -- regardless of the Rule of law -- we no longer have a republican form of government.

STE

39 posted on 11/07/2010 4:04:28 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Here’s more:

The Constitutional Law Of The United States, by Westel Woodbury Willoughby:

http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/76-Republican-Form-Of-Government-Defined.html

“The late Judge Cooley, in his Principles of Constitutional Law2 has perhaps defined the term as satisfactorily as anyone. “By a republican form of government,” he says, “is understood a government by representatives chosen by the people; and it contrasts on the one side with a democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign powers of government, and, on the other side, with the rule of one man as King, Emperor, Czar, or Sultan, or with that of one class of men, as an aristocracy.” “In strictness,” Judge Cooley goes on to say, “a republican government is by no means inconsistent with monarchical forms, for a King may be merely an hereditary or elective executive while the powers of legislation are left exclusively to a representative body freely chosen by the people. It is to be observed, however, that it is a republican form of government that is to be guaranteed; and in the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchical and aristocratic forms, there can be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people’s representatives make the laws, and their agents administer them, but the people would also, directly or indirectly, choose the executive. But it would by no means follow that the whole body of people, or even the whole body of adult and competent persons, would be admitted to political privileges; and in any REPUBLICAN STATE, the LAW must determine the QUALIFICATIONS for ADMISSION to the ELECTIVE franchise.”

STE=Q


40 posted on 11/07/2010 4:40:29 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

A Supreme Court justice may be removed if impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. Shirking their responsibility in deciding such a deep-rooted Constitutional issue such as this can be shown to be an impeachable offense. It is, after all, their job they avoid. Perhaps it is time to push on these decision makers. They are vulnerable, and the grass roots have shown their strength this November.


41 posted on 11/08/2010 9:14:34 AM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Thanks for the ping


42 posted on 11/08/2010 9:15:11 AM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q; STARWISE; Red Steel; bushpilot1; rxsid; All
A treatise on constitutional conventions: their history, powers, and modes ... By John Alexander Jameson (1887)

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA100&dq=The+Constitutional+Convention+%22Jameson%22&ei=7i7YTNaxD8WSnwfqspi8CQ&ct=result&id=OAIpAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

§ 107. Now, with the exception of royal titles and the physical circumstances of marriage and birth of children, which give a local coloring to the doctrine of legitimacy in Europe, it is applicable, in similar terms and for the same reasons, in the United States. It is true here, as there, that, to be lawful or legitimate, successive forms of government must be the offspring, regularly and lawfully begotten, the later of the earlier. They must be developed, one out of the other, after the order of Nature in the genesis and growth of her organic products. A system of government, in other words, having been established, it must itself govern, as well in the matter of reproducing or repairing itself as in that of protecting itself and its subordinate members from the operation of harmful agencies without. A government, once founded, is the people, as organized for the attainment of the ends of government.

43 posted on 11/08/2010 9:50:45 AM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: so_real

A Supreme Court justice may be removed if impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. Shirking their responsibility in deciding such a deep-rooted Constitutional issue such as this can be shown to be an impeachable offense. It is, after all, their job they avoid. Perhaps it is time to push on these decision makers. They are vulnerable, and the grass roots have shown their strength this November.


If Supreme Court justices are impeached and removed, it is Barack Hussein Obama who gets to appoint their replacements between now and January of 2013. Obama already has appointed and had confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan.

Which 67 US Senators are going to vote to remove any Supreme Court Justice who is sitting on the current high court bench? Which 11 Democrats are going to join with the Republican conservatives and which Republican RINOs in the Senate are going to vote to remove any Supreme Court justice?

A Supreme Court justice cannot and will not be impeached for anything other than a “high crime or a misdemeanor”.

Failure to act on a judicial decision or voting the “wrong” way on a judicial decision does not constitute a high crime nor a misdemeanor.

Only one Supreme Court Justice in US history has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase in 1805. He was acquitted by a wide margin in his Senate trial.


44 posted on 11/08/2010 10:04:43 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Your points are well taken. Perhaps the time is not yet ripe to pressure the SCOTUS. Mea Culpa. My commentary stems from frustration as the SCOTUS willfully chooses to do what is easy, rather than risk adjudicating against a popular political figure who just happens to be ineligible for the seat to which he was elected. I must work to temper my own frustration. I would point out, however, that democrats have twenty Senate seats up for re-election in 2014. We have more sway with them than we generally consider. In many ways, I believe we have a virtual majority in the Senate should the RINOs put on their big-boy undies and not equivocate on conservative issues. Still, you are right, that political capital is better spent elsewhere -- for now.


45 posted on 11/08/2010 1:17:46 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Your points are well taken. Perhaps the time is not yet ripe to pressure the SCOTUS. Mea Culpa. My commentary stems from frustration as the SCOTUS willfully chooses to do what is easy, rather than risk adjudicating against a popular political figure who just happens to be ineligible for the seat to which he was elected. I must work to temper my own frustration. I would point out, however, that democrats have twenty Senate seats up for re-election in 2014. We have more sway with them than we generally consider. In many ways, I believe we have a virtual majority in the Senate should the RINOs put on their big-boy.


Your articulate post above is very well taken. Good work!


46 posted on 11/08/2010 2:36:12 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson