Welcome to New Kenya! (Africa U.S.A.)
"Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land"
You are so right, it is up to us from here.
Posted on 02/09/2009 9:30:14 PM PST by rocco55
We the law no longer works to do justice, it's just us. Time for revolution.
If you’ve ever had to deal with the legal system, you would know that they (the legal community) have rules of their own. For example, it’s not important to prosecutors that the plantiff is truthful. And the defense is much more concerned that they maintain ammiable relations with the judge than to forcefully represent their client.
While we would all like to think justice is blind, the fact is that any involved are a$$ kissers to the Nth degree.
At least in the world of engineering, we have rational facts to ground ourselves. In the world of law, there’s no such stable grounding - all so called fact is only human pronouncement hence subject to human failing/misinterpretation.
the environmentalist wackjobs were granted standing to obstruct - i want standing too
Welcome to New Kenya! (Africa U.S.A.)
"Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land"
You are so right, it is up to us from here.
the show was one hour and free to listen to at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow
the description provided by andrea is:
a new lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, this one targeting Congress as a defendant for its “failure” to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office. a new lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, this one targeting Congress as a defendant for its “failure” to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.
We’re never going to win this one. He’s in and he’s entrenched. We just have to saddle up and wait for the right opportunity to pounce. It’s early yet, Bambi will do something something illegal (The Rats can’t help themselves) and we’ll have him out of office and hopefully in prison where he belongs.
Generally speaking, “standing” is a legal “device” used to make sure that a party suing have a “unique” and vested” interest in the outcome. (Those terms have specific legal meanings). It’s real purpose is to make sure that people aren’t suing for anything and everything. For instance, I can’t sue someone who breached your contract if I don’t have a specific legal interest in that contract. Let’s say I am your brother. Of course I have an “interest” in it as I want you to get that to which you are entitled. However, I do not have a “legal” interest in that I was not party to the contract.
As legal procedures developed, this fundamental concept of standing had to be applied to large groups that might want to sue an issue, i.e. class actions, etc. But the standing rulings that are applied in this case are the ones developed in people suing the Govt over general tax issues, i.e. spending taxes on abortion, or war, or research of apples, etc.
Now the problem with the tax cases, if the fact that since you were an American citizen of COURSE you h0ve a vested interest in the matter, and it does affect you directly, is that if you permit the average citizen to sue, you have just spelled the deathknell of our legal system. Millions upon millions of cases would be filed and the system would shut down. So the standing rules that have developed (and these are followed universally by liberal and conservative judges) is that in order to sue you must have an interest in the proceeding unique from the population at large. For instance, if the Govt uses tax money that results in the destruction of your property through government pig farming, then you can sue. However, your neighbor down the street that has religious beliefs that prohibit pig farming may not.
Again, this is one of those very few issues that knows no ideology. Conservative and liberal judges alike are in lock step on standing.
As it pertains to suing over the BC, it’s like the tax cases. You must show something unique in the injury over and above the populace at large. Saying something like “it affects me because it is unconstitutional” isn’t unique. And regardless of what you think of the underlying issue with the BC, it makes no difference if you can’t show a unique injury. If they were to permit standing in the BC case, they would likely have to start permitting the tax cases.
This begs the question . . . who has standing. That’s a good question and beats the hell out of me. I haven’t done mountains of research on these issues but have read many of the pleadings and done a bit of research. The only group that may have standing would be Congress or an elector or some other governmental entity that has some procedural interest in the matter.
Furthermore, there is the problem of even if it gets to SCOTUS, they could even say that the purpose of this constitutional provision was unique to it’s time and that as long as Obama was a citizen at some point is enough. They could also say that the time to object has passes. The could say that it is the sole purview of Congress to decide the issue as they count the electoral votes.
But absent something glaring like Arnold trying to run, this issue is never ever ever ever going to be ruled upon by any court in this country. Ever. It’s always going to get kicked (at some level) due tothe standing issue.
And even if some lower court state judge ruled otherwise, it will be meaningless because nothing will happen as it goes through the appeal process where it will be overturned.
It’s a dead issue and a waste of time. And it isn’t going to be too long before they start hitting the Plaintiffs for costs and attorney’s fees for filing frivolous lawsuits.
And while I know no one here likes this answer, I hope it helped a bit. =)
Apologize for any typos. Too tired to go back and check this. Night.
P.S. Freely petition doesn’t mean ya get to file lawsuits. it just means, pretty much, you can bitch at them and they can’t arrest you for it.
Ever think that maybe, just maybe, that lawsuits filed by people who think 9-11 was an inside job, or that black helicopters sent by Obama are flying over their houses and men in yellow suits are following them, just might not have any merit?
I am loath to suggest this, but look up the definition of standing on wikipedia. (I detest wikipedia.) You don’t need a lawyer. It’s pretty clear (to me) that none of these plantiffs had standing because standing involves more than simply having the right to object. It also requires the plantiff to sustain a tangible loss or damage. Being a candidate in the election doesn’t prove a loss/damage. There is nothing to indicate that the candidate would have won the election had Obama not been on the ballot. Standing also requires that the named defendant had to take some action that made him directly responsible for the plantiff’s loss. If you can’t prove a loss/damage, then, by definition, you can’t prove that the defendant’s action/inaction caused the loss.
The COLB is a forgery, but that doesn’t help us prove anything with regard to standing.
The right combination of circumstances will come along, but judge shopping to get it done is wrong. It’s wrong when it’s done to force gay marriage. It’s wrong when it’s done to further abortion rights. It’s wrong when it’s done to force environmental protection.
Berg’s case at the 3rd District is moving forward as of 5 days ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2179249/posts
I'm going to go out on a limb **snicker** and predict that it too, will be dismissed.
The only interesting question here how many poor, gullible souls the 9-11 truther will end up conning into giving him money to supporting cases that will inevitably get dismissed.
Drink and celebrate to the Usurper in Chief!
“The only interesting question here how many poor, gullible souls the 9-11 truther will end up conning into giving him money to supporting cases that will inevitably get dismissed.”
Take your sniveling, distorting and misleading pessimism somewhere else. Its perfectly obvious that the very last thing you want is for any of these cases to proceed and you’re simply trying to discourage other people. I wonder why?
why? because he is a damn commie surrender monkey liberal thats why. gutless bastards like him would rather see our nation go down without a fight.
"This ex parte meeting with promises exchanged should settle everything.
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.