Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Filed court docs at link.

Up the chain it goes, from there the next step is SCOTUS.

1 posted on 10/27/2009 1:37:01 PM PDT by Danae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Danae

Mario is a good guy.


2 posted on 10/27/2009 1:39:04 PM PDT by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/when-it-comes-to-obama-media-continues.html


3 posted on 10/27/2009 1:39:32 PM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae; LucyT

BUMP


4 posted on 10/27/2009 1:40:22 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae

THIS fraud upon this nation must be revealed and all those who participated in this fraud must be held to account and 0bama must be tried,convicted and imprisoned along with his cohorts in this terrible crime against America.
0bama has already done enough damage to the nation. He needs to be exposed.
He does not care a whit about this nation in any case. What he loves in playing King of America and Michelle, Queen..look at how they seem to play and party rather than do what is good for the nation, The Chicago Way has to go.


5 posted on 10/27/2009 1:40:55 PM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: STARWISE; LucyT

Ping


6 posted on 10/27/2009 1:40:59 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae
When is this going to be resolved? Anything new on pursuing the Quo Warranto?

What is Obama Hiding and Why?

The Truth sooner or later will come out. . .

7 posted on 10/27/2009 1:41:49 PM PDT by Art in Idaho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae
Up the chain it goes, from there the next step is SCOTUS.

The Third Circuit is an "appeal as of right"-- they must decide the case one way or the other. After that, the losing party can ask SCOTUS to hear the case, but SCOTUS can refuse to hear it without giving any reason. They hear only about 1% of cases they are asked to hear.

8 posted on 10/27/2009 1:43:16 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae; Faith; pissant; rocco55; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

.

9 posted on 10/27/2009 1:44:35 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae
Other than being kicked out of office, I wonder what legal penalties could be brought against Obama and the other co-conspirators?
11 posted on 10/27/2009 1:48:15 PM PDT by charles1252
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: little jeremiah; STARWISE; rxsid; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; ...

Ping


14 posted on 10/27/2009 1:52:51 PM PDT by Danae (No political party should pick candidates. That's the voters job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Danae
Center column 3rd paragraph down:

Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
> you have to turn to page 1291

According to the the principal framer (John Armor Bingham )of the 14th amendment, particularly
Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause (Defining who was a citizen of the United States) and by Mr. Obama’s
own admission he is not a Natural Born citizen.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . –
John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

24 posted on 10/27/2009 4:03:57 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

This may not be news to any of you guys, but it is to me.

So I’m in my history class today and discover the first time a judge refused to hear a case based on “standing” and it was essentially a way to get out of ruling on a case that would get the court in hot water or prove itself impotent in the actual enforcement of the ruling.

Marbury Vs. Madison- Chief Justice John Marshall didn’t want to issue an order to Sec of State Madison that he knew Madison would ignore, but he also supported Marbury’s position. So.... “judicial review” was born and wala, we have the first case of kick the judicial can.

And we see it still applies today. When a judge is a weenie, “standing” applies.


26 posted on 10/27/2009 4:30:44 PM PDT by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson