Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
“...because the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.”
Judge England from a transcript of Grinols v Electoral College, 3 Jan 2013.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120844360/Transcript-of-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-3-Jan-2013
See Nero's post #136.
How would they ever be kept off the ballot or be prevented from becoming President?
The voters, the electoral college, Congress's certification, or a quo warranto case by the Republican nominee.
Soros is one man, a rich one, but no James Bond supervillain. If you really think he has the power to collapse the world economy, perhaps you have some evidence of this?
And if he could, do you think no member of Congress would publicize-- and thereby neutralize-- the threat?
And if his threat were so fearsome that no one would call him out, why wouldn't he threaten the court as well?
So, even by your theory-- which, most respectfully, sounds like something out of a comic book, not a law book-- there is no reason to add a meaningless layer of judicial review to a process which the 20th Amendment assigns to Congress.
That hearing was a travesty.
The judge references hearing from the HDOH. Who filed that document from the HDOH to the judge, when, and what document was it? He says it is the only credible information that the Court received. When did they receive it, in what form, and from whom?
It has to be a different document than anything that’s been known publicly, because the HDOH has NEVER certified the authenticity of what was posted online, and when Ken Bennett specifically asked the HDOH to verify either the genuineness of the online image or the actual birth facts, ONAKA REFUSED.
So unless this judge has a document that nobody knows about, he is a bald-faced liar.
Show me the documents.
Because that would affect everyone in the country equally, meaning that it could be resolved through the electoral process (as one of my law professors put it, "if everyone has standing, then no one has standing"). Someone with a unique personal stake would have standing (Mitt Romney, for example).
So you’re saying that Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse would be required to be on the WA ballot if the dems were willing to nominate them. Correct?
If so, then how is the WA statute enforced, that requires filers for placement on the ballot to “qualify”?
How would any of these people stop OBL or MM from being on any state ballot: voters? electoral college? Congress?
How would the electoral college keep OBL or MM from becoming President if either the voters voted for them or the election was stolen for them? What is the process that would be used to stop these ineligible creatures from becoming President?
Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers created a system where the fate of the whole Constitution depends on the person who is defeated in the PResidential election?
So you’re saying that Osama Bin Laden or Mickey Mouse would be required to be on the WA ballot if the dems were willing to nominate them. Correct?
If so, then how is the WA statute enforced, that requires filers for placement on the ballot to “qualify”?
How would any of these people stop OBL or MM from being on any state ballot: voters? electoral college? Congress?
How would the electoral college keep OBL or MM from becoming President if either the voters voted for them or the election was stolen for them? What is the process that would be used to stop these ineligible creatures from becoming President?
Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers created a system where the fate of the whole Constitution depends on the person who is defeated in the PResidential election?
Exactly. Although it has old roots, the standing doctrine in its modern form was developed by conservative judges to deter liberal judicial activism.
“How would any of these people stop OBL or MM from being on any state ballot: voters? electoral college? Congress?”
__
It seems to me that the minute the name of either OBL or MM was floated as a prospective candidate, the public outcry would be so great as to shame into submission anyone who had presumed to advance the idea seriously. No political party would be that stupid.
Those who believe they have evidence of Obama’s ineligibility have simply failed to make their case to the public, and two presidential elections have taken place without it coming to the attention of anyone in authority that there is any substance to it.
Kevin Freeman, “Secret Weapon”. The Sept 2008 run on the bank was economic terrorism.
The Islamists and communists are united against America and capitalism. Imagine all the money of world communists and all the money of world Islamists, and then imagine them united under George Soros (the self-declared owner of the democratic party). That’s the kind of power we’re talking about. And Freeman points out that both the communists and Islamists have planned on using this kind of economic terrorism to pull down America. Very deliberate stuff. HE goes into the different layers needed to make this plan work.
According to Bettina Viviano who was told by high-ups in the Hillary machine, George Soros asked both Hillary and Obama during the 2008 primary whether they were on-board with his plans to destroy the US economy; Obama was.
I don’t think you understand the nature of the threat. Any move that Soros didn’t like, and he could send the signal for another run on the bank that would end the world as we know it. Do you remember GW Bush telling the country that economic Armageddon was upon us if we didn’t pass TARP? That was the same day that John McCain suspended his campaign and asked for all the debates to be canceled. Obama was ho-hum. He knew all about it so it didn’t worry him a bit. In fact, McCain and Palin were leading in the polls until right after that run on the bank. It was geared toward getting Obama in the White House. Shortly after that Soros threatened the media heads, supposedly with FCC and FEC annihilation after the election if they reported on Obama’s eligibility problems. But it was Bush’s DOJ and administration at the time so that threat doesn’t make sense because they COULD just report the threats and make sure that Obama was never elected. It had to be some other threat, and it had to be very, very serious.
Do you remember Bush talking about economic Armageddon? Do you remember communists like Chavez and Castro saying that “Since capitalism has failed the world should try communism”? Do you remember Islamists like Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad saying, “Since capitalism has failed, the world should try Islamic finance”? Do you remember that the TARP money went primarily to foreign shariah-compliant banks - very likely the people who helped pull off the run on the bank - and that nobody in the federal government investigated who made the run on the bank?
I believe he did threaten the courts. I believe that the more conscientious of the judges put out red flags to let us know they were acting under duress. Stuff like claiming that 4 years’ worth of Military Reserve pay doesn’t add up to the $500 minimum, or inviting Obama to visit the Supreme Court for an ex parte visit on the same day that the Supreme Court was supposed to be giving an unbiased decision on whether to hear Donofrio’s eligibility case, or hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie at the very same time as doing a total 180-degree reversal in both manner and decision in a pending eligibility case, or not certifying a transcript of the court case so that Obama and his lawyer could not be held in contempt of court, or claiming that a case was frivolous because Obama’s eligibility had already been decided on Twitter.... etc.
The timing of all of this stuff falls right into line. When you realize what happened and look at the sequence of events things that didn’t make sense before make sense.
This explains why Ghadaffi said in a public speech that the Muslim world had contributed to Obama’s campaign (remember the disabling of the credit card verification?) It explains why Obama felt that after one year in office he had to explain in private to the Egyptian ambassador why he was taking so long delivering on the “Muslim agenda” - because he had to get Obamacare passed first. (The agenda all sects of Islam agree on are the destruction of the US and Israel and the institution of worldwide sharia). It explains millions in US tax dollars going to Kenya to push for a Constitution that allowed sharia there (as was included in Obama’s cousin, Raila Odinga’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Muslims there - if they did violence to get him in power he would help institute sharia - and Obama helped deliver on his cousin’s promise, using US tax dollars).
Ah, there’s too much to go over. Too many dots that contribute to a clear picture.
Ret. Col Lawrence Sellin overheard one of the R Presidential primary candidates explaining why nobody would touch the eligibility issue: because it goes far, far deeper than anybody was willing to delve.
There is way, way more that I could say on this stuff, but I’d suggest you read Freeman’s book. There’s a review of it at http://globaleconomicwarfare.com/2012/12/review-of-secret-weapon-from-a-european-view/ If you think this is all far-out speculation, then you’re living as if it’s still 9-10-01. If you’re not aware of the Cloward-Piven Plan and Obama’s role in preparing the country for this strategy of economic manipulation and terrorism, then you need to read up.
So anyway, if you don’t think this is real then just consider it as a hypothetical. If Congress and judges can be threatened by an economy literally taken hostage by enemies seeking to install a foreign enemy combatant in our White House, what in our system and Constitution protects us from that?
AS long as everybody is dead, nobody is dead. I get it.
(puke)
Why was Roe v Wade decided, when Roe had already had her baby and thus had no justiciable case according to the criteria you’re talking about?
“Why was Roe v Wade decided, when Roe had already had her baby and thus had no justiciable case according to the criteria you’re talking about?”
__
That’s a good question, and it was addressed directly in the decision:
“The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review, and not simply at the date the action is initiated ... (citations omitted)
“But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness.”
Since July of 2009, which is the farthest back I can go in the comments (because that’s when you joined FR) the ***ONLY**** subject you have ever commented on is Obama’s eligibility. And you have always argued steadfastly, unmoved by and unresponsive to any evidence.
So as long as Osama Bin Laden were a little more obscure (like being a non-noteworthy nobody most his life and then either hiding or purging all his records when he rises to public attention, maybe... hiding behind “confidentiality”...) they’d be fine. Nobody would know any better and everything would be peachy. Just think of the damage OBL could have done if he had just shaved his beard and blended into the woodwork in America for a while instead of giving away his cover on 9-11...
But the question all you Obot trolls won’t address is this: ***HOW**** would anybody keep Osama or Mickey Mouse off the ballot? If the public voted for these guys even though they are not eligible, how would they be kept out of our White House? How is the system set up to insure that a non-eligible President can never illegally occupy our White House?
“Our law should not be that rigid”.
I rest my case.
If everyone is affected, they can remedy it at the ballot box, or by lobbying Congress. Courts are not supposed to run the country.
I've addressed this numerous times, although you ignore my responses. Congress can refuse to certify an ineligible candidate, and the opposing candidates (either in the primary or the general election) have standing to sue in court. Your problem is that John McCain thought Obama is eligible, Mitt Romney thinks he is eligible, all 535 members of the Congress in 2009 thought he was eligible, and all 535 members of the current Congress think he is eligible. The Constitution has no "butterdezillion veto" clause that I can find.
Mr Mind Reader, how do you know what 537 people think? Only 537?
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.