Posted on 08/07/2010 8:22:35 PM PDT by bushpilot1
“Anything not designated to somebody else in the Constitution is left to the judiciary...”
Patently false.
Read it again, B. Don’t just make stuff up that caters to your prejudices.
One of the reasons the judicial system is allowed to refuse a case is if it is a “political question”. The way that a case arising out of the Constitution is a “political question” is if the Constitution specifically gives the jurisdiction or responsibility to somebody else. That’s the specific legal definition of what a “political question” is, according to what I’ve read from lawyers.
I’m not making this stuff up. Ask a lawyer.
The question of whether Congress can require somebody to buy health insurance - who decides that? (Article III Sec 2 says: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority - to all cases....” (talks about different kinds of cases)
The question of whether a Senate candidate is eligible - who decides that? (Article I Sec 5 says, “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...”)
The book that Bushpilot1 linked to also talks about that, saying how the terms used define what the jurisdiction is. The legislative branch makes laws. The judicial branch interprets and applies law and Constitution by making judgments in cases. The executive branch executes the laws. If something has to be INTERPRETED or a JUDGMENT given, that applies to the judiciary. It’s not rocket science.
Where does the Constitution ever say that Congress decides eligibility and elections issues for THE PRESIDENCY, as well as for their own members? Where is Congress ever specifically given a role (beyond counting the electoral votes and deciding a split vote) in the Presidential election at all?
Nobody has ruled on it because they all say nobody has standing to raise the question.
What makes you believe that Congress in any way enters the question of whether Obama “qualified”? Show me the text you rely on to say that the legislative branch has any power or jurisdiction on this issue.
It is the judiciary’s job to inform the Pres elect that he did not “qualify” by Jan 20th. Anything not designated to somebody else in the Constitution is left to the judiciary, who is to settle all cases arising from the Constitution. They refused to do their jobs, saying that nobody had “standing”.
As to why they refused to do their jobs... I’d REALLY like to know that. But alas, nobody has to answer questions from peons like We the People. What do you think this is - government by the people and for the people? Get real.
A state legislature(s) might also invalidate their state’s awarding of electoral college votes to an unqualified candidate, thus invalidating the results of the general election.
A failure of both Houses of Congress to resolve the objections to the certification of an unqualified persons’ ability to receive Electoral College votes would trigger the 20th Amendment if not resolved by January 20th.
Let’s say for illustrative purposes that when the Joint Session of Congress met that Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennnessee and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had submitted written objections to Vice President Cheney that Barack Obama was unqualified to receive the electoral college votes from those two states due to the fact that he is not a natural born citizen. Both Houses of Congress would have then immediately convened in separate sessions. Let’s say that the vote of each state in the House and in the Senate on the objections to the Electors is 25 votes (states) in favor of the Wamp/Coburn objection and 25 votes (states) opposed. No state is willing to change their vote by January 20th. In that situation, Vice President Joe Biden would have become Acting President.
I’m am betting, but I freely admit that I don’t know for certain, that eventually the Supreme Court would have been forced to rule on Obama’s qualification as a Natural Born Citizen, probably on a lawsuit brought by Obama himself.
When you say its the “judiciary’s” job, that’s awfully broad. The “Judiciary” involves the entire court system of the federal government. Could any one federal district court judge rule a president-elect or a candidate to be unqualified?
When a particular plaintiff isn’t granted standing, it is the responsibilty of plaintiffs’ attorneys to go and find another plaintiff who does have standing.
I do though appreciate your agreement that there has been no ruling by any official body that Barack Obama didn’t qualify for the presidency.
The judiciary would include whoever had original jurisdiction as well as all the appeals. Nothing is fully decided until SCOTUS rules on it. That’s where the buck stops.
The judiciary would include whoever had original jurisdiction as well as all the appeals. Nothing is fully decided until SCOTUS rules on it. That’s where the buck stops.
United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code, 18 USC § 1512
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both
“I’m not making this stuff up. Ask a lawyer.”
I’ve talked with a few lawyers about this matter. None of them agree with your lay-person’s assesment.
You asked them what a “political question” is, and what Constitutional cases the judiciary can get out of?
No.
I asked them to explain to me what was happening and why it was so.
Their explanations have, in general, held true so far.
And you never asked to see their math?
The sum total of what has happened on this from a legal perspective is that every court has said nobody has standing.
If that’s all you want to know, I’m sure they all do agree on that much. Doesn’t mean anything regarding what will happen when somebody sues the federal government for the violation of the 20th Amendment, since Obama is doing what only Joe Biden can do.
Lawyers don’t use much math.
I highly recommend that everyone meander on over to:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2567594/posts
As a refreshing departure for the usual caterwauling that we usually find on these threads, this guy actually knows what he is talking about and everyone will find something to support their argument, no matter how tenuous (even butterdezillion).
Laywers don’t like to be wrong, so there are plenty of caveats in this blog, but I suspect that if LTC Lakin has read it, he’s not feeling very good. I doubt that the judge is going to allow the Obama BC in, but even if she does, it will likely be sealed. That will really set the Birther Brigades off into a frenzy.
Disclaimer: Everything written here is opinion, proof is neither offered nor implied.
lol.
And some of them really don’t like having to show their work either.
I loved geometry. I couldn’t see 3-dimensionally so that was a problem but I LOVED doing geometric proofs. Loved showing what we could derive from a particular “given”, just from knowing the laws. I love that kind of thinking. I love working with people who know how to do that kind of thinking and give good reasons for what they claim.
So, thanks again!
Best award goes to butterdizilion (spelling?) quoted below:
1. The HDOH has confirmed that Obama’s BC is amended.
2. HRS 338-17 says an amended BC means nothing legally until determined as probative when presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body.
3. Obama has made sure his amended BC has never been presented as evidence.
4. Without any legal determination of Obama’s birth facts nobody can legally say even what age he is, much less where he was born or who his parents were.
5. To “qualify” to be president a person has to meet the age, citizenship, and residency requirements of Article II.
6. Nobody could possibly know whether Obama “qualified” even now, much less Jan 20, 2009.
7. The 20th Amendment says that if the President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President”.
8. Only one person can act as President at a time.
9. If the 20th Amendment was followed, Joe Biden alone would be able to “act as President” at this time.
OK. Now let’s do this like a geometric proof. Tell me which of those statements is incorrect. If they are all correct, then the conclusion is correct.
Only statements 7 & 8 are correct.
Statement 5 is partially correct.
The remaining statements are incorrect.
Nee!
It!
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.