Judge Carter Ruling on MTD

scribd ^ | 10/29/09 | Judge Carter

[OldDeckHand]

"What Carters message in his decision also means is that since Obama will be a incumbent President in the next election, no other upcoming challenging candidate will have standing either because he will still be the President during the next campaign because he was sworn in office in 09."

Yeah, I don't see it that way. While I don't believe any of the current challenges to him will prevail, I believe that there's every likelihood that challenges to his future would be heard, given of course the appropriate party brings that challenge.

Incumbency is immaterial to ballot access, and that's the real issue - Would Obama be eligible for the office and therefor eligible for ballot access?

[presently no screen name]

I don’t have to go back and read anything. YOU are nothing new here - you have the same old rant! It’s known, your ‘ways’ aren’t a secret. And today you displayed your whiny liberal side - can’t take the heat but %*tch about some lawyer who could run circles around you. YOU have NO IDEA what heat is nor truth.

[presently no screen name]

Hey lib - shove YOUR SPIN. Got it, skippyboy?

[presently no screen name]

Don’t preach, hanging chad! And don’t ‘act’ concerned about FR with all the DU crapola YOU POST!

[BP2]

Orly better start quoting Stevens on standing instead of Roberts and Scalia then.

Let me help...

The concept of "Standing" is relatively modern.

The majority of legal scholars who have studied the issue have concluded that the Framers of the Constitution never intended that Standing — a term absent from the Constitution —  to serve as an independent test for identifying who can properly bring a legal claim in federal court.

Instead, the Framers believed that Congress should have broad power to enact legislation granting citizens the right to sue.

While Justice Scalia may be viewed as succeeding in transforming the Court's “Standing” jurisprudence, it remains uncertain whether a majority of the High Court fully embraces his restrictive theory of "citizen standing".

You’d be foolish to think that prior Motions to Dismiss other Eligibility cases DEFINE Scalia’s and the SCOTUS’ stance on this "citizen standing" and Separations of Powers. It’s really less about Article III, Section 2 – and more about Politics.

Why do I say this? Do you remember Gore v Bush??  Well … LOL, of course you do ;)   

I think it’s pretty clear that the SCOTUS really does not want to get involved in the middle a political issue again … BUT  … it WOULD, if there was NO OTHER WAY to resolve the controversy.

Judge Carter seems to agree, even though Obama’s Justice Department espouses that it’s the Legislature’s job to decide such heady issues.

REALLY?!  Does Congress seem even remotely-CAPABLE or UNBIASED enough to handle such a “controversy”?!! Of course not! That’s why Article III, Section 2 DOES exist. The SCOTUS has clearly established a standing requirement and has grounded this requirement in the Constitution, which grants the judiciary the power to hear "cases" and "controversies."

So yeah – resolve this by redefining the Standing issue – and throw it in front of Justices who serve for LIFE, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The SCOTUS is about the only entity deemed by most to be neutral enough to tackle such a controversial issue. BUT again – before the SCOTUS takes it on, the case has to come up through the court system or else the SCOTUS would seem to be too eager or biased in taking on the issue. This would ALSO revise aspects of Marbury v. Madison (1803) to some extent.

In regards to Standing, particularly "citizen standing,” I contend that Justice Sotormayor may agree with the concept that the Individual is more important than the collective – as would other Justices –  especially if the argument is framed in a different light. Justice Ginsburg has said, "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," evoking the Declaration of Independence. Sotormayor hinted that mindset, too, last month on her first day on the High Court.

Is the USA a Corporation? There are valid arguments that it is – which BTW, could also be exploited to pound the Quo Warranto concept into the dirt on this case. But honestly, I prefer the questions that Orly inferred: How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him? Does Quo Warranto apply if a president is indeed illegitimate in the first place? Despite what some view as being irrefutable favoring the POTUS via Quo Warranto, Judge Carter takes pause at these questions – as rightly he should.


BUT, back to the subject of Standing …

Who has more power in the Constitution – a Corporation or the Individual? Reference the Constitution and you’ll find the Bill of Rights is VASTLY in favor of the INDIVIDUAL, not a Corporation or the “collective”. That concept wasn’t really FIRST challenged until 1886.

I think that Sotormayor and the other Justices might view Individual rights, as well as the rights of the taxpayer, beyond current High Court and lower court interpretations of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) seem to indicate. In Lujan, it was ruled that plaintiffs must “have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ in the form of the ‘invasion of a legally protected interest,’ that is both ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ ”

If you agree with that stance, you’re a Globalist and beyond help. If you don’t – you’re a Conservative – whether you wish to be labeled as such or not!

Similarly Judge Carter hints that concept is balderdash, when on Oct 5th he inferred (my words here):

WHO protects the rights of a Third Party (regardless of size — Perot or Keyes), in a Two-Party Legislature, and a One-Party Executive Branch?

Further, Gary Kreep argued that Congress lacks the political neutrality to make such a decision. Judge Carter seemed to concur. Again, this CHALLENGES the commonly-held view of what Scalia espouses, but again … the framing of an argument in front of a Justice can change the outcome of case law.

To that end … does Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487 (1923) and Marbury v. Madison (1803) deserve some tweaking?   Yeah, I think they do!

If you gave a damn about your own personal rights and freedoms, so would you. Just look at the more-draconian aspects of The Patriot Act and other modern legislation restrict individual liberties to get a taste of what I’m talking about.

"WE THE PEOPLE" is NOT about a Collective — but defines that we are a group of Individuals who each have Rights. Those Rights are Providentially-granted AND can be breached and violated by their Government.

The SCOTUS' current stance on "Standing," especially in the Eligibility cases, is a glaring example of this. And thus is a reason — among the more-obvious of Obama's eligibility — that this case must be appealed.

[mlo]

"Dear FRiends: If you have the photo of that Chinese leader with the Hawaiian COLB, could you please post it as well as any other info. related to the foreigners with Hawaiian COLBs to “BigGuy22”?"

That would be one that was *allegedly* issued in 1904. Not one from the State of Hawaii issued in 1961. And again, there's nothing remarkable about a COLB for a foreign born person. There are good reasons for issuing those, and I'm sure most if not all jurisdictions do so. The issue is, can you produce one where the state LIES about where the person was born?

[Non-Sequitur]

What I gather is that the Judge has ruled his opinion that at the moment Obama was sworn in he officially became President and after that moment standing to remove him by civilians and military members ceased to exist except for only Congress through impeachment or the 25th ammendment.

Judge Carter dealt with the whole issue of standing long before he mentioned the election. And the inauguration didn't factor into any of them. What the inauguration did impact was the question of redressability.

[BigGuy22]

This is certainly a controversy. The Court apparently agreed that it involves the United States, since defendants were represented by DoJ attorneys.

It is a controversy in the colloquial sense, but the phrase "cases and controversies" has a long history, and there are many Supreme Court decisions that have bearing on its current legal meaning, which is intimately connected with the whole notion of "standing."

Look into it. It will give you a lot of insight into what the standing issue is all about.

[BigGuy22]

Dear FRiends: If you have the photo of that Chinese leader with the Hawaiian COLB, could you please post it as well as any other info. related to the foreigners with Hawaiian COLBs to “BigGuy22”?

Ah, you are referring to Sun Yat-sen! Yes, he had a phony Birth Certificate from Hawaii. But he died in 1925, and that fakery took place long before Hawaii became a state and adopted an entirely different set of laws.

Remember what you said -- you had examples dating from the same period as Obama's, and that's the part that I doubt.

[BigGuy22]

forged BCs are nothing new.

Now don't get your bowels in an uproar! Of course there are forged documents, and if Obama's COLB is forged, someone is guilty of fraud and maybe more.

My point is simply that the "long form" arguments are red herrings. A COLB is legal proof of when and where someone was born -- unless it can be shown to be an invalid document. It is prima facie evidence, and the burden is on the challenger to show it is false.

[El Gato]

I think it will be nearly impossible for Obama to run for POTUS in 2012 without disclosing his BC. As soon as Obama officially declares himself a candidate for 2012, anyone who decides to run for POTUS can file suit for proof of eligibility.

Probably the courts will rule that no one has the right to be President, so no substantial injury to such a right occurrs if their opponent is not eligible to the office. Just watch. (only half sarcastic)

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment, which we will not get, to the effect that: "A natural born citizen is one born of two citizen parents, in the United States, to include any territories in which persons become citizens of the US upon their birth. Person's born to parents serving the country but outside of it shall be deemed to have been born in the United States for purposes of determining Natural Born Status. The President Elect shall provide certified official birth records to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or other documentation which the Chief Justice finds acceptable, in order to demonstrate that he meets the Natural Born Citizen Requirement."

(I'm sure that could be tweaked up a bit)

Absent that, or state requirements for the same sort of documentation before a candiate can be placed on the ballot, Bammie will be the Democrat's nominee in 2012. Assuming that there is a 2012 election.

[kukaniloko]

See that’s good. You are exercising your freedom to participate in a spirited debate - though the quality could use some work.

[presently no screen name]

YOU Rock! You offer some light in the midst of all those who are dancing w/the Muslims on this thread - the same old ones.

Thanks BP2 for the positive attitude.

[El Sordo]

“This has gone on with him over and over and over for months. Where’s the upper limit on that? “

It’s pretty much what he does and is all he brings to the party. I ignore it.

[presently no screen name]

DO NOT post to me - you got it? I’m a conservative - I don’t participate in SPIN and I share NO COMMON GROUND with you.

[LucyT]

Check out #385 by BP2.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2373840/posts?page=385#385

(So, how come I have to do all the work?)

.

[kukaniloko]

If you want me to not post to you, a good way to get that process started would be to lead by example - you know - something a conservative would do.

[lucysmom]

The Chinese leader was Sun Yat-sen and the birth certificate was issued in 1904.

[LucyT]

Disclaimer.

She isn’t my mom...

[BigGuy22]

I think it will be nearly impossible for Obama to run for POTUS in 2012 without disclosing his BC. As soon as Obama officially declares himself a candidate for 2012, anyone who decides to run for POTUS can file suit for proof of eligibility.

I think you're right -- I think Obama will have to show his BC before the 2012 election.

And I also think it will show that he was born in Hawaii.