Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Steel
Could someone explain this to a big fat dummie. Is this good or bad? My wife wants to know.
20 posted on 09/21/2009 10:53:30 PM PDT by jarofants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jarofants

>>> Could someone explain this to a big fat dummie. Is this good or bad? My wife wants to know.

ROFL! ITS AWESOME! Blows the motion to dismiss clear out of the water.

It all boils down to how much the judge understands and believes in the constitution.

One of the arguments made was that if the courts do not act, then the people have no remaining recourse but armed revolution... which was pointed out as also being authorized in the constitution.


25 posted on 09/21/2009 11:02:29 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: jarofants

See my post #95.


96 posted on 09/22/2009 6:42:05 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: jarofants; LucyT

It’s a relatively poor job. If the Judge hasn’t already made up his mind to deny the Motion to Dismiss, the paper doesn’t much help him. Fortunately, I think Orly has a Judge who has made up his mind. But the pleading is lousy.


107 posted on 09/22/2009 8:28:41 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: jarofants
The previous posters that responded to your post appear to "have forgotten" to mentioned this large salient point.

Page 2. "Idem: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 13, ll 1517. Where Congress has done absolutely nothing to investigate or prosecute a question, Defendants’ position appears to be that this very inaction or acquiescence by Congress creates a presumption of legitimacy. Apparently, Defendants would have this Court believe, hold, rule, and accept that utter and complete inaction, stony silence even by the Vice‐President of an opposing party sitting as President of the Senate during the certification of the electoral vote to Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. §15, is and must be sufficient to satisfy the people that the President has met the Constitutional qualifications for office. "

Cheney either forgot or intentionally missed to query Congress if they had any objections to Barack Obama becoming president. Cheney failed in his ministerial duties as prescribed by "3 United States Code §15." The omission by Cheney may come back to bite Obama in his @$$ since...

The thrust of Obama's and the government's Motion to Dismiss is that Congress and the Electoral process are the ones who vet presidential candidates and no one else. The government stepped in it here. As pointed out that they failed to follow procedure.

In the Governments Motion to Dismiss, they conveniently omitted the following passage as it is written statute 3 U.S.C. §15:

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof… "

Cheney left a big hole that may increase to the size of Meteor Crater, AZ in the governments argument, so conveniently not explained to you.

152 posted on 09/22/2009 1:19:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson