Posted on 03/07/2011 2:34:10 AM PST by RobinMasters
Blackstone uses “defendant” for Quo Warranto, and the process is said to be long and exhaustive, thus we infer that short-cuts like presumption of any significant disputed fact towards one party were not in effect.
Tell me, where does the Article III power to demand that local districts bus young children living on the same block as a school to another school a hour’s drive away?
Where does the Article III power to insist that certain politically defined “racial” groups get preferential treatment in being given contracts and jobs within the government, or in private companies doing business with the same?
Where does the Article III power come to give cause for a Judge to demean the petitioner before him? Is the ruling any more legal for resort to provocative smears? Just wondering...
On what basis are the reasons so limited?
Can we add a “hue and cry” or “cry de pais” to those reasons? Isn’t there and even longer standing common law principle that provides a method of a hearing in court before a Judge a matter of continued contention, or extrema of danger, where no clear established principle of current law seems to apply? Wasn’t such the reason for Quo Warranto and Mandamus in the first place? These are legal remedies or judicial relief, so as to maintain the peace and good order in a society, or to effect justice in a situation for which the current system of law has not provided?
Where is the relief for the People to a hypothetical situation even more obvious as to illegitimacy for office than an Obama, say a man proven to be too young, once sworn into office?
What is the measure of a just system? Can it be measured by how casually Judges esteemed by their peers mock the lowly who appear in earnest before them? Or how “Justice” makes more than enough care for the powerful, the connected and famous, to the point of obsequiousness?
A dispute as to whether a President is eligible to hold the Office is no trifle, and yet the COURTS have treated it as such. While process of law in the US has settled into many constraints, not all are wise, nor is process of law, Law, or is it Justice. Justice has not been had here, people are in states of uproar, that uproar will increase. Should a lawyer or judge love process more than Justice?
Wouldn't there be a yearbook with his mug in it?
College yearbook pictures, I understand, are optional (not mandatory). School pictures are mandatory for grade school and high school.
What would a degree verification service tell you about BO's degrees at Columbia and Harvard?
I read somewhere that people in BO's Harvard class were contacted and they're all very tight-lipped about his years there.
Wonderful post.
HuckleChuckle is shill for the elites. This proves it.
I did not vote for him the first time around and this is one of the many other reasons that I will not vote for him if he decides to run again.
james, you keep posting this quote by Clay Land. I know you’re not as stupid as he is, when he said: “Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status.” Does the judge not know that states require candidates (or their representatvies) to swear that they are eligible on the nomination/ballot forms?? Who else would have the burden of proof but the person swearing such a claim??
From the Wikipedia entry on “burden of proof:”
Civil law
In civil law cases, the “burden of proof” requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover. However, in cases of proving loss of future earning capacity, the plaintiff must prove there is a real or substantial possibility of such a loss occurring.
The burden of proof must be distinguished from the “burden of going forward,” which simply refers to the sequence of proof, as between the plaintiff and defendant. The two concepts are often confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
Not positive about this, but recently read that the US President is issued his carte blanch passport by the State
Deptartment and regulations do not apply.
His present passport means nothing. What matters is what nation’s passport he used during his childhood Indonesia-based travels, and what nation’s passport he used for his international travels before he became president.
We know for a fact that his passport file was tampered with during the campaign - and that those doing the tampering were in the employ of John Brennan, who has since been rewarded with being appointed ‘anti-terrorism czar’. That level of tampering isn’t done by curious employees. It is done by people assigned a mission. Something had to be removed; the person who drew that assignment - who knew the content of what was being removed - turned up murdered shortly afterward. Murder passed barely noticed, is unsolved, and will remain unsolved.
When Blackstone wrote on Common Law he wrote in the context of a King and subjects. The subject of a Quo Warranto — the defendant — has in essence harmed the King. That is not the same in America, the sovereign here is no King, it is instead “We the People of the United States”. “We the People”, as a people, and “We the People of the United States”, that is as represented through our States.
A dispute as to whether a President is eligible to hold the Office is no trifle, and yet the COURTS have treated it as such. While process of law in the US has settled into many constraints, not all are wise, nor is process of law, Law, or is it Justice. Justice has not been had here, people are in states of uproar, that uproar will increase. Should a lawyer or judge love process more than Justice?
If the “Obama is ineligible” movement wants Obama’s natural born citizen status examined in a formal legal procedure, find a prosecuting attorney to convene a grand jury investigation on this issue.
You can whine all you want about the legal system, every person who loses in Court says the exact same thing.
The fact remains that there are a score of well known, conservative constitutional law firms in the US who regularly argue the originalist-strict constructionist position before the Supreme Court of the United States on issues of concern to conservatives, from gun control to property rights to pro-life, and not one of them has gone anywhere near an Obama eligibility lawsuit.
I suggest that you actually READ Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth’s Memordandum Opinion in Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto). Judge Lamberth is an appointee of Ronald Wilson Reagan and his opinion is extremely specific and thoughtful, particularly the section that addresses the requirements for filing quo warranto against a federal official under the DC Code.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
Why do we have appeal courts?
Why do we have appeal courts?
Approximately 30 rulings on Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen have been issued by state or federal Appeals Courts, almost always by multi-judge panels. No lower court ruling has been reversed.
With yesterday’s second cert conference on Hollister v Soetoro, the Supreme Court of the United States has had 13 opportunities to examine the issue.
The better answer: To fix mistakes Judges make. Isn’t it shocking that in “30 rulings” not one mistake has been made that produced any hearings on disputed facts, presenting of evidence, subpoena, depositions or cross-examinations.
By the way none of the rulings were on Obama’s eligibility were they? They were on legal process.
And the DC Code does not trump the Constitution.
Dred Scott filed his suit in 1846. It took 11 years to get a ruling. ALL THE PROCESSES OF LAW WERE FOLLOWED. In the end he was ruled a sub-human, and not only him, but all descended from black Africans. That was a novel ruling. What Judicial BOLDNESS!
Scott was freed when his owner, a widow, married an well-off abolitionist. He lived as free sub-human for 17 months before consumption got him.
Scott's widow and children survived to live long enough to have the LAW declare them human again. But that took a great blood-filled war.
The estimates of the dead from that war: 600,000.
Isn't scrupulous legal process grand?
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.