Posted on 01/14/2010 10:08:15 AM PST by STARWISE
Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.
In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.
Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.
The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.
On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.
“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,” Taitz wrote. “A number of criminal activities were perpetrated upon this court.”
On Dec. 4, Carter denied her request for reconsideration, saying legal language that he had ruled once and for all - and that meant the case was finished in his court.
This doesn’t have anything directly to do with her court case, but it’s of interest to note that on her blog later in December, she suggested armed rallies and protests might be in order.
The day before Christmas, she asked Carter to send the matter to Washington, D.C. court. But neither Santa nor Carter granted her wish. Carter issued his ruling Tuesday.
I have an accident and they find out the blindness!!
IOTW because DMV already have issued a "valid" driver license, means they cannot "legally" take it away???
Now that you’ve demonstrated your imbecility to everyone in this forum you can go back to watching World Class Wrestling.
Perfect sense, the child could be anything he wanted but President of the US...what's wrong with that? His mother could have naturalized before his birth and he would be eligible.
What limits do you consider acceptable, two illegal alien parents but born in the US, is that ok?
Even if irrefutable proof of Obama’s birth in Kenya or Indonesia was provided it would change nothing. We are so afraid of the rampant carnage (burning cities, murdering people of West-European descent) that would follow his removal from office that absolutely nothing would be done about it (other than maybe shooting the messenger).
I think I would be more afraid of not removing him from office and thus having a Constitutional crisis. Who would be afraid then? Tyrants, that’s who not Free Citizens who obey the Constitution. I suspect with irrefutable proof even an idiot like Obama would step down before DC was put under seige byt the people. It’s not about race its aoubt eligibility no matter how hard people try to make it suit their purposes. If McCain had won I guarantee his eligibility would be challenged, would western-europeans riot to keep him in office? I think not, htey would toss him out just like Obama. We are a Nation of Laws or we are not a Nation.
Can’t argue with any of that. I firmly believe that America is not like any other country that’s ever existed, and so something like the Russian Revolution, for instance, isn’t going to work here because we’re a different breed of folks than the Russians of 1917 were. If you push us past a certain point we’re going to kick @ss and take names. The Obama administration is making a serious miscalculation, in my view. Up till now, we’ve been taking it on the chin but the day is coming when we’ll decide that we’ve had enough.
The dismissal of that case had nothing to do with the evidence. It had to do with standing and jurisdiction of the Court.
It's not a lessor form of citizenship, it's an ineligibility. If the mother in your scenarios was naturalized before you were born, you'd be eligible. Birth in Vancouver doesn't matter, citizenship does.
That's pretty much what the Russians did. Then the Reds took over the revolution and the rest is history. Not so likely to happen if the revolution was against a Red regime in the first place.
Of course they would-- each murder is a specific act that affects a specific plaintiff. But if an allegedly illegal act affects everyone generally and not anyone specifically, it has to be resolved by the elected branches, not by the courts. For example, if I sue the U.S. Government for causing global warming, I don't have standing. That is a good thing, because the issues of whether there is global warming and what should be done about it should be decided by Congress, not by one judge and one jury.
The U.S. Supreme Court; the doctrine is based on the Constitution's requirement that the federal courts decide only "cases and controversies," which has been interpreted to mean the type of lawsuits that have historically been decided by courts. The doctrine is not "tyrannical"; it is designed to keep judges from overthrowing the wishes of the people and their elected representatives.
The leading case is Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), in which the court wrote:
"We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. The question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act…. The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally."
The Warren Court loosened the doctrine of standing up in the 1960s, as part of its agenda to change the laws in ways Congress and State legislatures weren't willing to do, but the Burger and Rehnquist Courts cut back on standing again in the 1970s and 80s.
Because they were English-trained lawyers and used English legal terminology. The Constitution is full of phrases that had a technical legal meaning under English law, which was widely understood at the time ("Duties, Imposts and Excises"; "Letters of Marque and Reprisal"; "Bill of Attainder"; "Cases in Law and Equity"; "Corruption of Blood"; etc., etc.-- I could give you 50 examples).
English law recognized only two kinds of subjects-- Natural Born and Naturalized. The Constitution used that terminology.
If you didn’t own a gun, you would most likely to be found without standing to sue as you would not have a specific cause of action related to the deprivation of a liberty interest. It would be the same as suing for the right to burn a flag before you have burned a flag. Nothing has happened so nothing can be affirmed or corected by the court.
If you were a gun owner, you would most certainly have a cause of action because the government would be confiscating specific property of yours and depriving you of a specific right in the Constitution.
You are losing a specific unique gun. Obama being president is not depriving you of a specific unique interest.
You don’t get it.
A law preventing everyone from publishing a newspaper would individually affect your right to publish a newspaper. A right protected in the Constitution.
A law aboloshing election would violate your specific right to vote - a right again protected in the Constitution.
Name the specific right or interest that Obama being president deprives you of uniquely.
I’m not really up to date on my spotted owl law. I believe standing in those cases was created by federal statute.
Congress could pass a law that states that individual citizens have the right to sue for enforcement of the natural born provision clause of the Constitution. That would eliminate the standing problem in all these cases.
Where in the Constitution does it say that a president has to be born in a hospital or be delivered by a physician?
If Obama was born in a hippie commune on an Oahu beach and if he was delivered by a mid-wife, he’d still be a natural born citizen.
Obama authorized release of his Certification of Live Birth and thus far the courts have ruled that’s the only vital record that he needs to show to demonstrate Article Two eligibility. Anyone who questions the validity of that document should get a District Attorney, a US Attorney or a state Attorney General to indict Obama for forgery or fraud, subpoena the original documents and convene a grand jury with expert testimony under oath to compare the short form to the long form.
The ideal legal situation would be the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark Bennett convening a Grand Jury investigation and seeking a subpoena for the original, vault copy long form vital record in answer to a complaint from Senator John McCain and/or Sarah Palin who are the persons most likely to be found to have standing to sue Obama since McCain/Palin were directly harmed by Obama/Biden becoming President and Vice President.
Hmm where in the Constitution is that?
Actually it's not. Only if the is violation based on certain criteria.
Race, color or previous condition of servitude (Amendment XV)
Sex (Amendment IXX)
Not paying a poll tax (Amendment XXIV)
or
Age if 18 or over (Amendment XXVI)
Name the specific right or interest that Obama being president deprives you of uniquely.
It doesn't, but as I've demonstrated, neither would suspending abolishing elections for everyone.
But I do get it, it's just that, IMHO, it's BS with no Constitutional foundation. It's a case in Law. it arises under the Constitution of the United States. Thus, it falls under the judicial power of the United States. The Constitution says the judical power extends to *all* such cases, not just ones where the persons bringing the case to court is "uniquely" harmed.
Which court accepted an image on the internet as a valid "vital record".
If Obama was born in a hippie commune on an Oahu beach and if he was delivered by a mid-wife, he’d still be a natural born citizen
Where does it say in the Constitution that Obama can hide to where he was born? Oh, you're one of those guys who erroneously believe native born is the same as natural born.
Obama authorized release of his Certification of Live Birth and thus far the courts have ruled that’s the only vital record that he needs to show to demonstrate Article Two eligibility.
BS. All we know is that some flunkies created that .jpg image for the world and placed it online to fool the gullible masses. Obama is not honest man. There is nothing in the world keeping Obama to authorize Hawaii to send his birth certificate to news outlets or any one of the courts cases that are against him to clear up to where he was born.
Anyone who questions the validity of that document should get a District Attorney, a US Attorney or a state Attorney General to indict Obama for forgery or fraud, subpoena the original documents and convene a grand jury with expert testimony under oath to compare the short form to the long form.
Oh sure... in this political climate - LoL! Lawyers can't get any government DAs (Quo Warranto) movement of the other suspicious activity . Here's a clue for you: Obama has not presented that image to falsify official documents that would be against the law to anyone -- that his flunkies call a "COLB," OR has Obama said that it is his real COLB. On the contrary, Obama keeps his distance away from it because it is a line of defense called 'plausible deniability', if his house of cards come tumbling down on his head.
The Constitution did not.
Firstly, in the 1700's, a subject of a crown could never be the same as a citizen of a (Constitutional) republic. That's self evident for obvious reasons.
Secondly, the Constitution speaks of two kinds of citizens:
1. A "Citizen", as being an eligibility requirement to be a Senator or a Rep.
2. A "Natural Born Citizen", as being an eligibility requirement to be POTUS.
Clearly, the framers make a distinction between a "Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen" as far as eligibility requirements to hold federal government office.
All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are "Natural Born" Citizens.
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.