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 ...
February 15th the SCOTUS will hear the case on 0bama’s elegibility .
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.
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.
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.
..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?
The Supreme Court held in Marbury that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to the President.
Correct, I got that point wrong. But the principle still stands, and thus Marbury had no standing.
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.
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?
I don’t know, what does your state law provide?
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.
Okay. What did you do about it?
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.
That's not my opinion. Mark Levin devoted a chapter to it in his Men in Black.
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.
“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.
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.
The problem rests with those who think a federal court will rescue them.
Thomas has already admitted SCOTUS is “evading” the issue. There’s not a snowball’s chance of them not “evading” it this time.
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.