Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg
Did i read that right?
You believe it is acceptable to be eligible to be president in two countries at the same time?
The president of Kenya stated he was eligible to be president of Kenya. Obviously an investigation of citizenship is warranted then.
Nice
“The current system reeks of too much democracy. Something the founders knew was dangerous. “
Dam Athenian style democracy or French Revolution style Democracy. People are really dumb as a box of rocks to believe that Democracy is the natural evolution of a Republic.
But there is no way the judge can “intrude” on Congress’s right to impeach. Her authority extends only as far as the case before her.
She is denying a man a fundamental right to defend himself with facts and witnesses in order to avoid a completely imaginary danger—that her court might accidentally impeach the President.
>People are really dumb as a box of rocks to believe that Democracy is the natural evolution of a Republic.
Well, considering the history presented in the bible where “the people clamored for a king*”, I think it would be safe to say that a dictatorship* is the natural end of a Democracy.
(* a king back then was not significantly different from a dictator - no Magna Carta yet)
Have you and I talked about this subject before? The subject of the Children of Israel demanding a King? Because that is one of my favorite positions when discussing why people demand big government.
Or,
The alternative is that you and I have the same play book.
My other favorite is this:
The reason that Americans demand a safe and predictable environment is the fault of the Public School System. In fact, Americans will harness the full coercive power of the State to ensure that they live in a highly controlled, safe, predictable environment.
From the time they are five years old Americans go to school. There, their loves are controlled by the bell. The bell tells them when to eat. When to move. When to study. When to play.
The text books are laid out sequentially, predictable with end of chapter questions that predictably follow the text. The semester tests predictably and neatly follow the chapter questions. everything is safe, predictable, controlled. When these same Americans grow up, they demand the same environment. They will use boots, guns, and tasers to ensure they get safe, predictable and controlled.
>Have you and I talked about this subject before? The subject of the Children of Israel demanding a King? Because that is one of my favorite positions when discussing why people demand big government.
I don’t think we have...
>Or,
>
>The alternative is that you and I have the same play book.
LOL - That we do.
In response to those who would say that the Christian thing to do is to submit to authority, with the implied submitting being utter and unconditional [somewhat like my father]; and in response to those who advocate a non-violence-at-all-costs [like Glenn beck] I would direct to the book of Esther — In Esther we see that God allows His people to [legally] gather together defend themselves against those who would do them harm (note that this “self-defense” allowance did not prevent their enemies from acting NOR did it excuse those who “holed up” in their own homes alone). We Americans have a similar, yet more broad, allowance to do violence to those who would do us harm: the Declaration of Independence outlines it.
Tell it to first POTUS George Washington: Vattel was his handbook for learning how to be President.
Hundreds? Really? That many. I'm surprised you don't recognize the quotation, because it's certainly well-known.
First, let's be precise about what Lind said. She said...
“The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”
Now, to anyone who has been educated in law (preferably not Orly Taitz law school, however), and especially the relevant case law surrounding nonjusticiability and the Political Question Doctrine, is going to say to themselves after reading that, "Boy, that's familiar".
It's familiar because she borrowed the statement from the landmark Political Question Doctrine case, Baker v. Carr.
More precisely, Lind, in authoring her opinion, quotes from several prior cases. One of the cases she cites is United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 108-09 (C.A.A.F. 2001). In that case, CAAF cites - just like Lind does in her own opinion - another case, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), and says....
"The Supreme Court has long recognized the principle of “nonjusticiability”: meaning that courts of law should decline to exercise their authority to decide matters where judicial intervention is deemed inappropriate. Based upon the Constitutional principle of separation of powers in the three branches of Government, judicial review of “a political question” is precluded where the Court finds one or more of the following:a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 218 (1962); see also Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968).
emphasis added
Lind cited an opinion, that cited an opinion that used the word "embarrassment", and then Lind borrowed that relevant section almost verbatim for her own opinion. How about that? But, from this, people think that Lind was attempting to save Barack Obama from embarrassment. Oy vey.
Keep reading those opinions, though. You'll get 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.