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

Skip to comments.

The Concept of Standing Used by Attorneys and Judges is a Canard
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/the-concept-of-standing-used-by-attorneys-and-judges-is-a-canard/comment-page-1/#comment-102507 ^ | January 18, 2013 | Bridgette

Posted on 01/18/2013 3:43:14 PM PST by Bridgetteb

A History of “Standing”

Multiple nationwide lawsuits against Obama citing his ineligibility were dismissed because of lack of standing. None were dismissed by judges who heard, understood or read the charges and evidence against Obama. With the thump of their gavels, they refused to uphold their oaths of office and dismissed citizen’s lawsuits questioning Obama’s right to be president under our U.S. Constitution because of their lack of standing.

It appears from the judges and attorneys who used standing as a reason to deny or dismiss lawsuits, that absolutely no one has legal standing or the right to question Obama’s qualifications to hold office. Some state that no one can take Obama to task except the Attorney General or Congress. We the People have no standing, so the complicit cowardly judges say. We can only wonder if they have all been threatened or bribed by those in the Obama administration. (Recall historically that judges were bullied or bribed during the tyrants Hitler and Stalin’s reigns, as were judges in other despotic countries. This is not a new phenomenon, but are tactics often used by totalitarian regimes. Within our own cities, i.e., Chicago are known for judges being bribed.)

(Excerpt) Read more at wtpotus.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; birftards; conceptofstanding; judgejohndbates; montgomerysibley; naturalborncitizen; obamaineligibility
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2013 3:43:21 PM PST by Bridgetteb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

February 15th the SCOTUS will hear the case on 0bama’s elegibility .


2 posted on 01/18/2013 3:51:22 PM PST by Lionheartusa1 (-: Socialism & Communism are the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1810), when the Supreme Court issued a “writ of mandamus”, ordering the president to act, and he refused, the president has been “above the law”. Since then, all they can do is stopping his subordinated from acting, as well, not order them to act, either.

So the courts just shrug, and use the excuse that only congress can depose a president by impeaching and convicting him of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. And congress has never had the guts to do that.

Bottom line: once he is elected by the electoral college, the only things that can get him out of office are impeachment or dying. And Woodrow Wilson’s wife is suspected of carrying on in his stead when he was in an extended coma.


3 posted on 01/18/2013 3:57:48 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lionheartusa1
February 15th the SCOTUS will hear the case on 0bama’s elegibility .

Not exactly. February 15 is the date of a private conference, not a court hearing. Among the several hundred items listed for that conference is a motion by Orly Taitz to stay Obama's inauguration pending her appeal to the Supreme Court (which she hasn't filed yet) from a lower court order in one of her cases. Since the inauguration will have already taken place on January 21, it's a safe bet that the stay won't be granted.

4 posted on 01/18/2013 4:07:13 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lionheartusa1

Look into the latest reports on Harrison J. Bounel, who died in Connecticut in 1977 but whose social security number apparently has been used by Barack Obama since 1980. The same number 042-68-4425 has appeared on IRS tax forms released by Obama for year 2009 income. Some call this identity theft, a common practive by illegal immigrants to the US.


5 posted on 01/18/2013 4:09:58 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb
Recall historically that judges were bullied or bribed during the tyrants Hitler and Stalin’s reigns, as were judges in..

..the U.S.A. Surely, folks remember FDR's threat to pack the SCOTUS with his execrable cronies if it didn't toe the line?

6 posted on 01/18/2013 4:10:09 PM PST by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1810), when the Supreme Court issued a “writ of mandamus”, ordering the president to act, and he refused,

The Supreme Court held in Marbury that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to the President.

7 posted on 01/18/2013 4:10:09 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Correct, I got that point wrong. But the principle still stands, and thus Marbury had no standing.


8 posted on 01/18/2013 4:23:54 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

Its sad to see so many conservatives fall into the liberal mindset that all disputes can be resolved in a federal court.

No federal court will boot a presidential candidate off fifty ballots. Ever. That is a good thing.

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution grants the States plenary power to appoint Presidential electors. It is there, as our Framers designed, among the State legislatures, that determination of presidential qualifications must be made.


9 posted on 01/18/2013 4:25:46 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

And when state secretaries of state refuse to follow state law? When state courts refuse to follow state laws? When there is blatant nonfeasance and judicial misconduct? What then?


10 posted on 01/18/2013 4:30:06 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I don’t know, what does your state law provide?


11 posted on 01/18/2013 4:34:42 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Federal courts can and have resolved state electoral issues. See Bush v. Gore.

If you are not aware of it, you should check into Voeltz v. Obama. Judge Carroll’s behavior is appalling. I believe this case has moved up to appellate court. It eventually could go to the US Supreme Court.

Regarding judge Carroll:

Making remarks not relevant to the proof of any legal or factual issue in dispute is a violation of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d)

Judge Carroll’s citing “Miracle on 34th St.” and his statements concerning Obama’s “appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court” are not relevant to the proof of any legal or factual issue in dispute.

Also: Fla. Stat. § 760.51(1) Whenever any person, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person of rights secured by the State Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General may bring a civil or administrative action for damages, and for injunctive or other appropriate relief for violations of the rights secured.

Acting under color of law, Judge Carroll has interfered with Voeltz’s rights secured by the State Constitution of Florida or the laws of Florida.

In my opinion Judge Carroll has at a minimum violated Fla. Stat. § 760.51(1) and R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d)

It’s likely there are Federal civil rights violations as well, in my opinion.


12 posted on 01/18/2013 4:50:53 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Okay. What did you do about it?


13 posted on 01/18/2013 4:53:59 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

There is no concept of standing in the Constitution.

Also, someone posted the other day the rules by which the nation should proceed if a president is found to be ineligible.


14 posted on 01/18/2013 4:58:14 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
BTW, in 2000, Governor Bush ignored the FL Supremos and sent the State's electoral votes in. Gore v. Bush was irrelevant, the votes were sent by the Governor as per FL law.

That's not my opinion. Mark Levin devoted a chapter to it in his Men in Black.

15 posted on 01/18/2013 5:00:06 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

I think it’s a handy excuse for them to use because no judge, Democrat or Republican, wants to touch the issue with a 10-foot pole. Even if they personally think Obama is unqualified, they are probably afraid of the personal consequences, or the consequences for the Judicial branch starting a war with the Executive branch. If they use the “standing” excuse, then they can toss the hot potato without having to ever weigh in on the subject one way or another.


16 posted on 01/18/2013 5:00:21 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“Woodrow Wilson’s wife is suspected of carrying on in his stead when he was in an extended coma.”

Good thing that was before the age of mass media, or public appearances might have been awkward. I’m imagining a “Weekend at Bernie’s” type thing.


17 posted on 01/18/2013 5:04:28 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Such as?

What makes you think there is anything I can do about it? What makes you think I live in Florida? In fact, what’s your problem.

Recall, among other SCOTUS actions, they halted the recounts because the way they were conducted violated equal protection clause of Amend. 14.


18 posted on 01/18/2013 5:11:19 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

The problem rests with those who think a federal court will rescue them.


19 posted on 01/18/2013 5:20:21 PM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thomas has already admitted SCOTUS is “evading” the issue. There’s not a snowball’s chance of them not “evading” it this time.


20 posted on 01/18/2013 6:20:51 PM PST by bgill (We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
"""""No federal court will boot a presidential candidate off fifty ballots....................... ..........Article II Section 1 of the Constitution grants the States plenary power to appoint Presidential electors. It is there, as our Framers designed, among the State legislatures, that determination of presidential qualifications must be made."""""" t

Sorry, your conclusion wrong and this is what happens when people do not understand the whole constitution.... Read On and take notice of the words "PRESIDENT ELECT". So obviously Artical 20 section 3 of the constitution is directing us what to do AFTER the presidential electors appointed by the states are finished.

Article 20 section 3 .... If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shal are finil act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

21 posted on 01/18/2013 6:20:57 PM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

There are two ways around the legal concept of Article Three Standing:
(1) There are no issues of standing in criminal courts. Those who oppose Obama’s eligibility have alleged criminal activities: forgery, fraud, perjury,
Election fraud, identity theft, just to name a few felonies. Why not prosecute those alleged crimes on the criminal side of the Justice system?
(2)There is no issue of standing in a congressional investigation looking into possible high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress also has subpoena power. Why hasn’t there been a congressional investigation in the House of Representatives of Obama’s natural born citizen status since the Republicans took control of the House?


22 posted on 01/18/2013 7:33:51 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution 123

It’s confusing because the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution says that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the President.”
A judge just ruled earlier this week in Grinols v Electoral College (an Orly Taitz suit) that a reelected incumbent is both president until his term ends at noon on January 20th and a president-elect until his new term begins at the same time that the first term ends.


23 posted on 01/18/2013 7:36:04 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

If we, the people, have no standing in this case, no one else could. We are the owners of this Constitution and republic, not the elected officials.


24 posted on 01/18/2013 7:45:22 PM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
There should be a third way around standing. The Supreme Court noted a couple of general rights in Fairchild v. Hughes:
Free citizens would be deprived of their right to have such elections duly held ...
And
Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law ...
Because these are basic rights of every citizen, then there's no inherent need to have legal standing to challenge an election that was not administered in according to law, as in not conforming with the eligibility requirement in the Constitution.

Another failing in these legal cases is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence and similar states' rules of evidence (such as in Hawaii), that a vital record is considered to be hearsay and generally inadmissable unless the adverse party is given the opportunity to inspect a certified copy of such a record:

A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of that intention to all adverse parties, and shall make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.

Arguably, anyone denied the right to inspect a certified, hard copy of Obama's alleged birth certificate in any of these cases is being denied a statutory right, and thus would have legal standing to insist on seeking redress of this particular grievance.

25 posted on 01/18/2013 8:06:23 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Thomas has already admitted SCOTUS is “evading” the issue. There’s not a snowball’s chance of them not “evading” it this time.

They are cowards, and not men. They must hang their heads in shame. They likely just take another drink.

26 posted on 01/18/2013 8:50:50 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Because these are basic rights of every citizen, then there's no inherent need to have legal standing to challenge an election that was not administered in according to law, as in not conforming with the eligibility requirement in the Constitution.

Exactly.

27 posted on 01/18/2013 8:53:00 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Thomas has already admitted SCOTUS is “evading” the issue.

Another myth. He was not talking about Obama's eligibility.

Every year, the Supreme Court sends one (sometimes two) justices to testify before Congress on the Court's budget. Every year-- and this has been going on long before Obama ran for office-- the delegate from Puerto Rico asks whichever justice is there if people born in Puerto Rico are eligible to run for President. Every year, the justice says that that issue hasn't come before the court. It's a running joke by now. When he asked Thomas the same question he's asked for years and years, Thomas joked that "we're evading that issue."

28 posted on 01/18/2013 8:59:45 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edge919

To the best of my knowledge no one ever made the argument that you are making and Hawaii law allows a confidential birth record to be released for inspection under court order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.


29 posted on 01/18/2013 9:04:47 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Because these are basic rights of every citizen, then there's no inherent need to have legal standing to challenge an election that was not administered in according to law, as in not conforming with the eligibility requirement in the Constitution.

You're mixing up two separate concepts. Many states have procedures whereby any voter can challenge a candidate's eligibility for office. Numerous election contests were filed against Obama this year; at least two of them (Indiana and Georgia) went to full trials. Every state in which a challenge was properly filed ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.

Standing in federal court follows different rules. Since at least the 1920s, the Supreme Court has said that if everyone has standing, then no one does-- meaning that if an issue affects every citizen equally, then it is something to be decided at the ballot box, not in court.

30 posted on 01/18/2013 9:08:18 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Hawaiian law allows all records to be released to the public in good faith to meet the public interest under its sunshine laws. Of course, the law doesn’t require the records to be released, but they are still allowed to be released. Hawaii simply refuses. But the other point here is that under their own state laws, if such a record is not given to the opposing party for inspection then that record is considered hearsay and is inadmissable. And this is where we are at legally. Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii is hearsay. It has never been legally certified.


31 posted on 01/18/2013 9:10:00 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
You're mixing up two separate concepts. Many states have procedures whereby any voter can challenge a candidate's eligibility for office. Numerous election contests were filed against Obama this year; at least two of them (Indiana and Georgia) went to full trials. Every state in which a challenge was properly filed ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.

Sorry, but I didn't mix up separate concepts at all. The issue was about how to overcome standing. And of the two states you cited, only one ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, but it was based on the ruling in the other state which NEVER ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, and its own judicial citings contradicted the idea that Obama could be a natural-born citizen.

Standing in federal court follows different rules.

Most state laws are similar to the federal laws, so this is generally a moot point.

Since at least the 1920s, the Supreme Court has said that if everyone has standing, then no one does-- meaning that if an issue affects every citizen equally, then it is something to be decided at the ballot box, not in court.

The standing doctrine applies to deciding the Constitutionality of legislation and NOT to the part I quoted, which says that ALL citizens have a right to a government that is administered according to law. This means that a citizen would NOT have to prove legal standing in an eligibility challenge because it is inherent depending on the laws of the state. And second, you're contradicting yourself because you're acknowledging that there are eligibility laws that do not require legal standing because ANYONE and EVERYONE who can legally vote has a right to challenge a candidate's eligibility in any particular state, depending on the applicable laws. If someone is denied that right, then they would certainly have legal standing to sue their state over the denial of that right.

32 posted on 01/18/2013 9:20:21 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
“””It’s confusing because the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution says that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the President.”””””

This whole thing is not very confusing to me. The above quote from the Twelfth Amendment assumes that the person elected is qualified for the office.

Later on, The 20th Amendment instructs us what we should do “If the president shall have failed to qualify”. Note the word IF.
First,..... It is obvious that the 20th amendment leaves open the possibility that the electors can make an error and elect an unqualified person. So, that elected person still must be qualified before he or she can assume the office . Hence the words “””Failed to qualify”””.

Second..... “””””””A judge just ruled earlier this week in Grinols v Electoral College (an Orly Taitz suit) that a reelected incumbent is both president until his term ends at noon on January 20th and a president-elect until his new term begins at the same time that the first term ends.”””””

So what you are saying is if a mistake was made the first time and an elected person who was not qualified assumed the office President of the United States, a new precedent is set and even though we know he is not qualified, we must now allow him to assume the office and forget the constitutional qualifications?

33 posted on 01/18/2013 9:23:00 PM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

What has caused you to excerpt your blog?


34 posted on 01/19/2013 7:06:34 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

1) There is no reason for you to excerpt your own material from Wordpress. You’re pimping your blog. But you also comment to posters, so you’re not the worst.

2) It’s amazing the wide range of people who’ve been denied standing over Obama’s forged credentials: Individual citizens, Secretaries of State, Electors to the Electoral College, other candidates...the list is as endless as the number of lawsuits. I say if the Electors to the College don’t have standing, nobody does, and that’s how this will end.


35 posted on 01/19/2013 7:34:28 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: research99

< Look into the latest reports on Harrison J. Bounel, who died in Connecticut in 1977 but whose social security number apparently has been used by Barack Obama since 1980. The same number 042-68-4425 has appeared on IRS tax forms released by Obama for year 2009 income. Some call this identity theft, a common practive by illegal immigrants to the US>

I come across illegal susing many different SSNs all the time. They use them to get utilities or credit or try to and believe it or not they either just invent them, they use them a LOT to get social services because they don’t check to see if they are in use by anyone else! A few years ago I came across a Hispanic lady that had 4 different drivers licenses (there was no mistaking it; all the photos on the ID were her and she had several SSNs that she was collecting benefits under. She didn’t work for some reason, mainly that she didn’t have to. Really makes you angry when you have to work so hard just to make ends meet then you see someone like that partying, taking trips, going to casinos and bingo halls all the time.


36 posted on 01/19/2013 7:46:23 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Can someone explain the concept here? Is there a prohibition on excerpting blogs?


37 posted on 01/19/2013 7:57:28 AM PST by bacall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: research99

Is there anything new on this front? Bounel was in the “news” some time ago. Anything NEW?


38 posted on 01/19/2013 7:59:39 AM PST by bacall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edge919
And of the two states you cited, only one ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, but it was based on the ruling in the other state which NEVER ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, and its own judicial citings contradicted the idea that Obama could be a natural-born citizen.

I'm not talking about the Ankeny ruling in 2008. Indiana had a full trial in 2012, where Orly Taitz called her expert witnesses to testify about the alleged forgery of Obama's birth certificate. The court ruled that her experts hadn't shown any falsity and that Obama was a natural born citizen. Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey also had administrative hearings and held the same thing.

And second, you're contradicting yourself because you're acknowledging that there are eligibility laws that do not require legal standing because ANYONE and EVERYONE who can legally vote has a right to challenge a candidate's eligibility in any particular state, depending on the applicable laws.

I'm not contradicting myself. Standing rules are different in state court and federal court. If you sue in federal court trying to apply state standing rules, the courts will toss you out.

If someone is denied that right, then they would certainly have legal standing to sue their state over the denial of that right.

And they did, in Georgia, Indiana and other states. Those states ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.

39 posted on 01/19/2013 8:47:50 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bacall; shibumi
Is there a prohibition on excerpting blogs?

What possible reason would someone have for excerpting their own blog?

40 posted on 01/19/2013 9:29:00 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Constitution 123

There is no “assumption” in the 12th Amendment, it is definitive and final as long as there are no written objections to the certification of the votes of the Electors.

My personal opinion is that the 20th Amendment presupposes challeges to Electors that would take a President-Elect below the “majority of the Electors” threshold.
For example, at the Joint Session of Congress held on January 4th, if one Senator and One Representative had lodged written objections to Obama’s electors in California and Ohio, that would have taken him down to only 259 electoral votes which is below 270 electoral votes needed for a majority and he could not assume the office of President until those objections were resolved by Congress, if ever. He would not have “qualified” and Biden would be acting president until resolution, or if there was no resolution by noon tomorrow, January 20th to give Obama 270 Electors, Congress could have selected a president under the provisions of the 20th Amendment.
But there were no written objections.


41 posted on 01/19/2013 11:24:52 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bacall

The latest developments are on www.birtherreport.com and Orly’s website.


42 posted on 01/19/2013 1:05:53 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Length?

That’s why I’m asking. I noticed before that freepers complain when someone excerpts from a blog. If someone copies and pastes the whole thing, that seems unfair to the writer; but I see your point about excerpting from your own blog. I’m relatively new and just trying to figure out the rules.


43 posted on 01/19/2013 2:50:37 PM PST by bacall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: research99

Thanks.


44 posted on 01/19/2013 2:51:16 PM PST by bacall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: edge919

It’s not like the “Obama is ineligible” movement didn’t do its darn’dest in Hawai’i to reverse Hawai’i Department of Health policy decisions on the release of Barry’s Vital Records. The courts always sided with the Department of Health in every legal challenge:
Constituion Party v Lingle (Hawaii Supreme Court)
Hamrick v Fukino (US District Court for Hawaii)
Justice v Fuddy (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals)
Martin v Lingle (Hawaii Supreme Court)
Martin v Attorney General Bennett (State Court)
Sunahara v Hawaii Dept. of Health (State Court)
Taitz v Astrue {Freedom of Information Act} (US District Court for Hawaii)
Taitz v Fuddy (State Court)
Taitz v Nishimura (Hawaii Supreme Court)
Taitz v Obama (Hawaii Office of Elections)
Thomas v Hoseman (US District Court for Hawaii)
Wolf v Fuddy (State Court)

All I’m saying is that I would have loved to see what Hawai’i Department of Health would have done with a Court Order from an actual JUDGE of a court of competent jurisdiction or what they would have done with a Congressional subpoena. They never had to respond to either.


45 posted on 01/19/2013 2:55:58 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
""".....But there were no written objections""""

So What? So you are concluding that the only way a President elect can fail to qualify during the time period after the electors vote and before the inauguration, is if there is an objection from one senator and one congressman? So Sorry, I can not agree with you.... That is not the way I read the 20th amendment. Using your assumption, if after the electors vote, clear evidence becomes public that definitely reveals a President elect "failed to qualify" Unless there is an objection, the office of the President can be constitutionally usurped? I don't think so.

I believe during this time period, a president elect can fail to qualify many different ways....For example.... 1)Assuming room temperature. 2)Mental illness. 3)Committing a crime. 4)Treason. 5)Evidence showing that Forged documents were used to hide ineligibility. (Obumer) Look at congress.... Not one makes an objection!! Yet The evidence is very clear that a crime was committed. I believe a grave situation like this was anticipated and that is why they use the words ".... failed to qualify.

46 posted on 01/19/2013 7:16:22 PM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Constitution 123

Ok, I see your point.
Who is it then that decides that a president-elect has failed to qualify? Congress? The Judiciary?
It would have helped the cause immensely if there had been a criminal investigation of document fraud and forgery. But there was no such investigation by a duly authorized law enforcement agency, by a prosecuting attorney such as a District Attorney, a state Attorney General, a US Attorney or an Independent Counsel. And there was no congressional investigation with a finding.
Every lawsuit that raised issues of document fraud, forgery or identity theft was decided in Obama’s favor and seven courts ruled that he is indeed a natural born citizen. Without a definitive ruling there were no grounds for any entity to rule that he failed to qualify.
When Orly Taitz raised issues of forgery and identity theft in 2009 in US District Court in Georgia, the judge fined her $20,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. SCOTUS refused to intervene and she had to pay the sanction.


47 posted on 01/19/2013 8:41:45 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
"""Who is it then that decides that a president-elect has failed to qualify? Congress? The Judiciary?"""

Now that is a really good question.... And I believe the answer is easy..... Anyone who can read, comprehends and takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If there is a disagreement on how the constitution wants us to operate our government, then, it is the purview of the courts settle the matter. Also, in certain circumstances congress can weigh in. This is one of those circumstances. However, we can not even get one to object!!!

""""It would have helped the cause immensely if there had been a criminal investigation of document fraud and forgery. But there was no such investigation by a duly authorized law enforcement agency,.....""""

There was and is a through investigation and it is helping the cause. The Sheriffs department in Maricopa county is the largest law enforcement agency in the state of Arizona and one of the largest in the country. At the request of constituents, the duly elected Sheriff Arpaio launched an authorized investigation focusing on the document posted on the official government White House website that Obama represented as a copy of his actual birth certificate. This investigation is still ongoing but has come to the conclusion that the document is a forgery . AND So far, not one court,government agency or major political commentator will even entertain the possibility of bringing it forward.

""""Every lawsuit that raised issues of document fraud, forgery or identity theft was decided in Obama’s favor and seven courts ruled that he is indeed a natural born citizen. Without a definitive ruling there were no grounds for any entity to rule that he failed to qualify.""""

Are you assuming these court rulings were the result of normal judicial procedures? Ask your self, how can a court make a finding without allowing discovery and hearing testimony from both sides? I am sure you will agree with me this is all very corrupt. The courts need to do their duty. Congress needs to do their duty. And Now.... we must do our duty. We must stand strong and never give up. For the sake of all who come after us.

48 posted on 01/20/2013 4:47:04 AM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bridgetteb

The article is wrong. Standing is used in ALL legal cases. You can’t go to court based on your being unhappy about something. Nor can you go to court if the only harm you have suffered has been suffered equally by all 300+ million citizens. You need to have suffered some specific harm, and you need to have something the court has authority to do to deal with that harm.

The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.

Further, courts HAVE heard the merits of these cases at times, and rejected them.

And states HAVE followed their laws. In Arizona, I’ve written to support efforts to require candidates to document their birth place and age with actual birth certificates, but the law doesn’t require that. You can’t argue Obama violated the law of your state if your state allows a letter from the nominating party as adequate proof.

I strongly believe all candidates should be required to release birth certificates, tax records, school records, and work records - but that is NOT what the law of Arizona says.


49 posted on 01/20/2013 4:56:01 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Judge Carroll was sarcastic. Lots of judges are. Including conservative judges. Sarcasm is not illegal.

If you think otherwise, submit an ethical complaint about him to the state.


50 posted on 01/20/2013 4:58:25 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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