So tell me this: Could a liberal Clinton appointee to the District Court in California have decided that President Bush was not constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States in 2002 and unilaterally order him removed from office?
Judge Carter would say no. And Judge Carter would be (and was in this case) right. Judge Carter’s order respectfully considered the arguments raised and rejected them on the basis of law and precedent. To slander this judge by calling him drunk and not knowing what he was doing is something that reflects poorly on the attempts to get to the truth of Barack Obama’s true origins.
It was the Congress’ job and the State Board of Elections jobs to examine Obama’s constitutional qualifications. They refused to do their job in the 2008 elections. Some states might actually make him show his birth certificate the next time around. If the Republicans win the Senate or House of Representatives in 2010, they can issue subpoenas, and get to the bottom of where he was born.
Thus, it is important to have the right people put in the right place to do the right thing, investigate the facts, and impeach and/or prosecute if and when the proof of the fraud is obtained.
But please stop crying about a judge who did his job and followed the law. And if you can’t understand how his opinion was following the law, go back, reread it, and research the limitations on federal judicial power that Judge Carter so painstakingly explained.
Bingo.
Which means that a fraud/crime had then been committed when the usurper submitted sworn applications to the partners involved and they then submitted sworn affidavits to SoS and others within DNC!
All this happened when the American people was kept in the darkness before the election!!
How do we deal immediately with such crimes, if not through courts???
DNC = Congress are in the majority, so the chain on the "football" field would NOT be moved forward even after the 1st down, regardless of the referee's demand to do so!!!
Excellent points. Carter is an outstanding judge.
It seems to me that both extremes are wrong. No, Judge Carter can’t just remove a sitting president because some people—quite a lot of people, in fact—think that he is guilty of criminal fraud and never was constitutionally qualified to be President.
But, yes, Judge Carter has the right, it seems to me, to examine the evidence before him and, if the evidence is persuasive enough, to demand that Obama should prove that he is a Natural Born citizen. Was he born in Hawaii or not? Which hospital? He has never actually produced any evidence as to his birth, since the online COLB is a forgery AND he has never explicitly said that it is his COLB. Someone else put it out there, not Obama.
Ultimately, it would be for SCOTUS to resolve the question. But I see no reason why Judge Carter should not have acted—other than tremendous pressure on him not to.
Thus, it is important to have the right people put in the right place to do the right thing, investigate the facts, and impeach and/or prosecute if and when the proof of the fraud is obtained.
But please stop crying about a judge who did his job and followed the law. And if you can’t understand how his opinion was following the law, go back, reread it, and research the limitations on federal judicial power that Judge Carter so painstakingly explained.”
From what I have learned, you are correct in your post above. Judge Carter did follow the law and Leo Donofrio explained it very clearly on his website some time ago.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Once Obama was sworn into office, the process to remove him must be done through quo warranto proceedings. As we speak this process is in the works and I believe will be successful. God bless Leo Donofrio and Steve Pigeon for their actions to defend the rights of the Chrysler Dealers and to uphold our constitution as they work to take the proper actions to remove the usurper from our White House!
It just shows that Orly Taitz isn't the only damned-fool whackadoodle out there.
Not arbitrarily, if he/she expected to be upheld by higher courts. But the eligibilty criteria are pretty black and white, and very few in number. If Bush did not satisfy one of those, then yes, a judge could and should, have ruled him ineligible. But of course Bush does meet the criteria. He was born in the US of US citizen parents. He was 35 or older and had lived in the US for 14 years. What basis would there have been for ruling him ineligible?
It was the Congress’ job and the State Board of Elections jobs to examine Obama’s constitutional qualifications.
And where is that written in the Constitution? The Constitution lays out the eligibility requirements. It does not say who is to enforce them. The answer is supposed to be "everyone". But as usually when something is everyone's job, no one did it.
That doesn't make an inligible person suddenly eligible.