Skip to comments.Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents (Photos)
Posted on 01/11/2013 4:44:07 AM PST by voicereason
click here to read article
Not quite. Article III §2 of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." neither of which are defined in the Constitution. However, over the last 210 years or so, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that to invoke federal court jurisdiction under the Constitution, the case and controvery must be "justiciable," and that "political questions" are non-judiciable. There are other non-justiciable controversies as well, including moot questions (i.e., whether a person was properly sentenced to death after the sentenced has been carried out); advisory questions (i.e.,asking the court to decide an issue that will not have an immediate impact on the parties, such as the constitutionality of proposed leglislation that has not been enacted into law); and lack of standing (i.e., the person seeking judicial relief has not suffered a harm or consequence that is distinct from the harm or consequence suffered by the public at large).
"Justiciability" and its various subparts is not a recent invention by liberal judges, rather it has been part of our jurisprudence since the earliest days of our Country and is derrived from the English commonlaw. And you are correct in that justiciability is somewhat of a moving target in that judges from both the left and right have used justiciability over the years to side-step cases that they don't want to hear.
excellent...I would expect that as a flaming progressive he will shout you down claiming that you are racist because don’t want a black POTUS.
“Political” issues are those over which the Constitution gives Congress express jurisdiction.
The 20th Amendment involves a “President elect” - which is somebody who has already made it past all the requirements, procedures, and input of the voters, the states, and Congress. There is thus no way that this issue could be under the jurisdiction of the voters, Congress or the states.
Once the voters, Congress, and the states have all had their input, the 20th Amendment STILL says that if the President elect “fails to qualify” they cannot act as President.
Who would enforce this? The interpretation of the Constitution is that nothing is in there that is unenforceable, so SOMEBODY has to be able to enforce this, AFTER the electoral winner has been declared by Congress. Whose Constitutional duty is it, to enforce this - that is, to overturn the outcome of an election by the expressed requirement of the 20th Amendment?
I should add that in the time between the certification of the electoral winner and the inauguration there is nobody who could have suffered particularized harm. This is a case where there could never be a “case”, using the current definition of “case”. This would HAVE to fall under the category of a “controversy”, which doesn’t have to involve particular individuals who suffered particularized harm above and beyond everybody else.
Who is supposed to decide non-political controversies regarding the meaning and enforcement of the US Constitution? To whom does the Constitution expressly assign that DUTY? Not option. DUTY.
Let me help out here. If the United States itself is to inaugurate/accept the authority and actions of the President elect, then this issue would specifically be a “controversy to which the United States shall be a party”, which Article III, Section 2 (paragraph 1) says the judicial Power extends to.
Paragraph 2 refers to “cases” in which a state shall be a party - and the 11th Amendment removes the possibility of this being a CITIZEN versus a state. So what the 2nd paragraph calls a “case” is in the 1st paragraph called a “controversy between 2 or more states”. The 2nd paragraph thus doesn’t distinguish between “cases” and “controversies”, but simply calls them all “cases”. And it says that “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
The President is presumably a “public Minister”, as is (for instance) a judge who would administer the oath of office of a President elect. If so, original jurisdiction belongs to the Supreme Court because it is a “controversy” to which the United States is a party and in which a “public Minister” is affected.
IOW, not only is this not appointed to Congress to handle (a “political question”), but it is a controversy expressly placed under the original jurisdiction of the SUPREME COURT. It is a “controversy” which involves the United States and there is nobody who even COULD HAVE suffered particularized harm so there is no way it could ever be a “case” between the electoral vote certification and Jan 20th.
Right, just think how much stronger this “pre-trial dispositive motion” (filed several months ago, btw) would be if it contained one of the two alleged hard copies of the alleged LFBC that Barry allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health.
IOW, the court is SUPPOSED to resolve political questions. This does NOT say they aren't supposed to.
However, over the last 210 years or so, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that to invoke federal court jurisdiction under the Constitution, the case and controvery must be "justiciable," and that "political questions" are non-judiciable.
I already said it was a legal invention, but for kicks and grins, find a case from 210 years ago the says political questoins are nonjusticiable.
Roberts can’t redeem himself. He will not allow his children to be ripped from his home. One’s children are closer to one’s heart than the Constitution. Nothing else could be. His blonde kids had some quirks in their adoptions from South America: possibly their country of origin was not correct and thus their papers may be null. Like another said, Roberts is pwned. I don’t think those kids will be 18 any time soon.
Obama uses a different local law firm in each state ballot challenge. He is not represented by Perkins and Cole. Local lawyers know state eligibility requirements and state election law better than a national firm would.
You might remember that Alexandra Hill (Genova, Burn & Giantomasi) represented him against Mario Apuzzo in New Jersey and that the infamous Michael Jablonski (private practice attorney) represented Obama in Georgia against Orly Taitz in the “trial on the merits” of Farrar, Powell, Swennson and Welden v Obama. A local Atlanta attorney, Jablonsky refused to show up for the trial and was threatened with a default judgement against his client which the plaintiffs rejected.
Neither Hill nor Jablonsky work for Perkins-Cole nor do Tepper (Garfied & Tepper) and Begley (Begley Law Firm).
“”””The judges actions are maddening, but I believe they are intended to be so, as red flags to tell the world that they are acting under duress.””””
Interesting premise Butter..... assuming you are correct and these are red flags, where are all the voices from conservative legal academia shouting about this from the roof tops?
I am not arguing with you. I really want your analysis to be correct. BUT maybe these red flags that are so obvious to us, are not so bright to others. Just thinking out loud
What conservative legal academia, and how would we hear from them?
Have you ever heard Mark Levin address Malihi’s decision to call Obama eligible without any evidence whatsoever (”judge’s knowledge”, they call it in sharia states), after initially saying that the burden of proof falls on Obama?
Mark Levin is broadcast by Clear Channel, I believe (somebody correct me if I’m wrong). Clear Channel was one of the companies that was threatened if anybody reported on Obama’s eligibility problem.
Butter, I would not include Mark Levin in the academic group expected to say something because although classified as a conservative academic, he is also without question a popular member member of the media and so far not one popular member of the media will touch this issue. I think if I were to answer my own post, I would direct myself to this link...
My post was a emotional outburst of frustration.... Sometimes I need to vent.
Unrelated, but I know a suicide victim. So tragic. About 20 years old.
I would love to see the crowd who put Obama in office go to jail.
We’re four years into this and there are still people who don’t understand the concept of “Distributed for Conference.”
I don’t even know what to say.
These other examples are irrelevant as the motions that were filed in Mississippi and the request for the letter of verification from Hawaii were specifically filed on behalf of the MDEC alone and not Obama. The point I brought up still stand. If this firm has a direct connection with Obama, then they could or should have been submitting one of the TWO alleged hard copies of the LFBC instead of a printout of a PDF and a vague letter of verification that shouldn’t be necessary upon the submission of a legitimate LFBC.
As was pointed out by 4Zoltan in a post above, Tepper & Begley are representing Obama as well as the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee. Both are co-defendants.
It will be up to Judge Wingate to decide which exhibits, if any, he finds to be probative.
If Judge Wingate doesn’t dismiss on dispositive motions, Dr. Taitz can gain access to the hard copy (copies) from Hawai’i during discovery.
The defense is under no obligation to submit any particular copy as an exhibit, particularly since the plaintiffs used the exact same image as an exhibit.
Surely it is amajority of the eligible Supremes. Two of them must recuse themselves. Therefore the number of affirmative votes required is 4.
Np. Onaka confirmed to AZ SOS that the White House image is NOT a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained on the White House image is NOT “identical to” the information on the original record.
So when Taitz submitted the White House image, she did NOT submit the “exact same image” as the hard copy from Hawaii. That’s the whole point of Onaka’s verifications.
Maybe you can tell me this: Why did Tepper certify that he served the opposing party with true and correct copies of what he gave the judge? Why didn’t he just say that he gave the opposing party information that matched the information he gave the judge?
“Two of them must recuse themselves.”
The SCOTUS has no rules or requirements for the recusal of Justices.
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.