Skip to comments.The chink in the armor..State Rep as eligibility plaintiff.
Posted on 02/10/2009 9:54:33 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
Representative Eric Swafford of Tennessee has agreed to be a Plaintiff in a legal action of Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ to demand that Barack Obama proves his eligibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
We love Orly!!
People in TN need to get more state representatives signed on. This case may need to be cloned in other states. Maybe all 58 states.
Hallelujah! Finally! An elected official I can truly respect. Prayers that this chink in the armor will become a gaping hole.
Swafford is a Tennessee State Representative who also proposed a bill yesterday for Tennessee’s sovereignty. He won’t be taken seriously by anyone and has no standing.
And this is supposed to accomplish what exactly? She’s been trying and failing with other suits for some time now.
Why do you say that? Dr. Edwin Vieira talks about standing and eventually a plaintiff will have standing and it could happen within 6 months or less.
And believe me there will be cases, they will have standing and Obama will have to deliver. If he does not then they will go to SCOTUS and they will not be able to turn them away.
Hey, were are with you on the “left coast!”
The reason I believe Swafford doesn’t have standing is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2182133/posts?page=1#12
I’ve finally come to the conclusion that because there is no law anywhere in the U.S. that requires presidential candidates to submit proper documentation to verify eligibility for POTUS that SCOTUS will continue to deny cert in these cases - with or without standing.
I believe Congress will have to pass a law requiring such documentation before the SCOTUS will attempt to decide anything. At this point, Barack Obama has not submitted any documentation whatsoever to demonstrate that he is a natural born citizen because he hasn’t been required to do so. He’s broken no law, that we know of.
If and when there is a legal procedure/process in place to require the necessary paperwork, then we’ll see some resolution. Until then, forged COLBs and non-statements by Hawaii government officials have not and will not hurt Obama.
Does anyone else find it odd that illegal aliens are granted standing to sue U.S. citizens on whose land they trespass while breaking into this country YET no U.S. citizen yet has standing in these Presidential eligibility cases?
"Standing" means that the plaintiff has a direct personal stake in the case. An illegal alien who was injured by a landowner has a direct stake-- they are claiming damages for injury they suffered personally. A long line of cases holds that someone asserting a "generalized grievance" that they share with other citizens has no standing because they can seek relief through the elected branches of government.
I know what standing means, LL. It is ludicrous to assert that illegal aliens have constitutional rights, much less the right to sue because someone will not allow them to trespass on their land while they are breaking into the country.
As for the nature of the harm done to each citizen if the constitutional requirements are not upheld, enjoy your foolish dancing on the head of a pin. The harm is real and concrete and suffered by each and every citizen if a usurper takes the presidency. (I do not know what Obama’s status is because he would not submit documents as McCain did. He may well be a natural-born citizen. Who knows?)
What constitutional rights they have is a totally separate question from the question of standing. Standing merely means that they have asserted a claim that their rights were violated. Whether they have rights, and what rights they have, are questions a court cannot even decide unless it first decides that the plaintiff has standing.
As for the nature of the harm done to each citizen if the constitutional requirements are not upheld, enjoy your foolish dancing on the head of a pin. The harm is real and concrete and suffered by each and every citizen if a usurper takes the presidency.
I am not telling you what the law should be, or what I would like the law to be. I am telling you, speaking as a lawyer, what the law is. And the law has been settled for generations that if the identical harm was suffered by everyone in the country, no one has standing. There is a very good explanation (not by me) posted here.
You seem to be taking the Democrat position. One of these cases will remove Obama from office.
Nope. Dr. Edwin Vieira does not agree. A defendant in a criminal case on any law Obama signs will have standing and a right to force him to produce.
As a lawyer, are you troubled by the sealed records, the e-mailing of a purported birth document while refusing to submit it to the authorities, as McCain did immediately, etc.? The American people should have standing in this matter. It is OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR COUNTRY.
No, I’m not taking the Democrat position.
My background as a software developer with extensive experience in printed documents in particular convinces me, unequivocably, that the COLB is a forgery, and a bad one at that.
I’ve extensively researched the claims of Berg and Donofrio. Some of the claims are total bunk. Some of the claims are spot on accurate. None of it is relevant at this point because Obama isn’t required to prove anything.
LL, mlo, and I (me against them) had a long discussion about how the SCOTUS was handling these cases. At the end of the discussion, the three of us were in agreement (unfortunately) that while the cases were referred to the Court, there was no conclusive evidence that they were discussed or considered based on merit. They could have been but we won’t know for many years until one of the Justices releases his/her notes.
It pains me greatly to agree with Lurking Libertarian and mlo on that issue, but I do.
I’ve heard that argument made. I’ve also heard the arguments in response. I haven’t spent much time researching it. I’ll have to punt on this one.
It’s my opinion that the Judges (and Justices) are waiting for a filed case to “hit it just right.” Then Obama’s birth certificate and documents will be subpoened and the case heard. Eventually, Obama will have to prove natural born citizenship (which he most likely can’t).
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.