jamese777 said:
When Orly Taitz attempted a quo warranto claim against Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his opinion: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Judge Lamberth dismissed the quo warranto claim on the grounds of not meeting the requirements of standing under Article III of the Constitution.
I recall that case. The judge was and still is an unprofessional ignoramus.
Nevertheless, Taitz is not able to file a quo warranto case unless there is someone with standing she is representing as one of her plaintiffs. Dr. Keyes had standing to sue the Secretary of State of California, but not based upon quo warranto. Quo warranto has very specific rules of engagement with regards to common law dating back to the Greek Empire. In the United States, quo warranto can only be exercised against a usurping president by:
- A state or federal attorney general
- A party to whom lays a "rightful claim" to the position
- Congress
- A high-ranking diplomat or leader from a separate nation engaged in treaties with the U.S.
- A government employee or elected official under the direct authority of the president
Orly is a grandstanding attorney. She does not clearly understand what quo warranto is any more than the majority of ignorant judges on these cases do.
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?