Posted on 01/18/2013 3:43:14 PM PST by Bridgetteb
A History of “Standing”
Multiple nationwide lawsuits against Obama citing his ineligibility were dismissed because of lack of standing. None were dismissed by judges who heard, understood or read the charges and evidence against Obama. With the thump of their gavels, they refused to uphold their oaths of office and dismissed citizen’s lawsuits questioning Obama’s right to be president under our U.S. Constitution because of their lack of standing.
It appears from the judges and attorneys who used standing as a reason to deny or dismiss lawsuits, that absolutely no one has legal standing or the right to question Obama’s qualifications to hold office. Some state that no one can take Obama to task except the Attorney General or Congress. We the People have no standing, so the complicit cowardly judges say. We can only wonder if they have all been threatened or bribed by those in the Obama administration. (Recall historically that judges were bullied or bribed during the tyrants Hitler and Stalin’s reigns, as were judges in other despotic countries. This is not a new phenomenon, but are tactics often used by totalitarian regimes. Within our own cities, i.e., Chicago are known for judges being bribed.)
(Excerpt) Read more at wtpotus.wordpress.com ...
Sorry, your conclusion wrong and this is what happens when people do not understand the whole constitution.... Read On and take notice of the words "PRESIDENT ELECT". So obviously Artical 20 section 3 of the constitution is directing us what to do AFTER the presidential electors appointed by the states are finished.
Article 20 section 3 .... If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shal are finil act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
There are two ways around the legal concept of Article Three Standing:
(1) There are no issues of standing in criminal courts. Those who oppose Obama’s eligibility have alleged criminal activities: forgery, fraud, perjury,
Election fraud, identity theft, just to name a few felonies. Why not prosecute those alleged crimes on the criminal side of the Justice system?
(2)There is no issue of standing in a congressional investigation looking into possible high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress also has subpoena power. Why hasn’t there been a congressional investigation in the House of Representatives of Obama’s natural born citizen status since the Republicans took control of the House?
It’s confusing because the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution says that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors “shall be the President.”
A judge just ruled earlier this week in Grinols v Electoral College (an Orly Taitz suit) that a reelected incumbent is both president until his term ends at noon on January 20th and a president-elect until his new term begins at the same time that the first term ends.
If we, the people, have no standing in this case, no one else could. We are the owners of this Constitution and republic, not the elected officials.
Free citizens would be deprived of their right to have such elections duly held ...And
Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law ...Because these are basic rights of every citizen, then there's no inherent need to have legal standing to challenge an election that was not administered in according to law, as in not conforming with the eligibility requirement in the Constitution.
Another failing in these legal cases is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence and similar states' rules of evidence (such as in Hawaii), that a vital record is considered to be hearsay and generally inadmissable unless the adverse party is given the opportunity to inspect a certified copy of such a record:
A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of that intention to all adverse parties, and shall make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.
Arguably, anyone denied the right to inspect a certified, hard copy of Obama's alleged birth certificate in any of these cases is being denied a statutory right, and thus would have legal standing to insist on seeking redress of this particular grievance.
They are cowards, and not men. They must hang their heads in shame. They likely just take another drink.
Exactly.
Another myth. He was not talking about Obama's eligibility.
Every year, the Supreme Court sends one (sometimes two) justices to testify before Congress on the Court's budget. Every year-- and this has been going on long before Obama ran for office-- the delegate from Puerto Rico asks whichever justice is there if people born in Puerto Rico are eligible to run for President. Every year, the justice says that that issue hasn't come before the court. It's a running joke by now. When he asked Thomas the same question he's asked for years and years, Thomas joked that "we're evading that issue."
To the best of my knowledge no one ever made the argument that you are making and Hawaii law allows a confidential birth record to be released for inspection under court order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.
You're mixing up two separate concepts. Many states have procedures whereby any voter can challenge a candidate's eligibility for office. Numerous election contests were filed against Obama this year; at least two of them (Indiana and Georgia) went to full trials. Every state in which a challenge was properly filed ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.
Standing in federal court follows different rules. Since at least the 1920s, the Supreme Court has said that if everyone has standing, then no one does-- meaning that if an issue affects every citizen equally, then it is something to be decided at the ballot box, not in court.
Hawaiian law allows all records to be released to the public in good faith to meet the public interest under its sunshine laws. Of course, the law doesn’t require the records to be released, but they are still allowed to be released. Hawaii simply refuses. But the other point here is that under their own state laws, if such a record is not given to the opposing party for inspection then that record is considered hearsay and is inadmissable. And this is where we are at legally. Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii is hearsay. It has never been legally certified.
Sorry, but I didn't mix up separate concepts at all. The issue was about how to overcome standing. And of the two states you cited, only one ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, but it was based on the ruling in the other state which NEVER ruled that Obama was a natural-born citizen, and its own judicial citings contradicted the idea that Obama could be a natural-born citizen.
Standing in federal court follows different rules.
Most state laws are similar to the federal laws, so this is generally a moot point.
Since at least the 1920s, the Supreme Court has said that if everyone has standing, then no one does-- meaning that if an issue affects every citizen equally, then it is something to be decided at the ballot box, not in court.
The standing doctrine applies to deciding the Constitutionality of legislation and NOT to the part I quoted, which says that ALL citizens have a right to a government that is administered according to law. This means that a citizen would NOT have to prove legal standing in an eligibility challenge because it is inherent depending on the laws of the state. And second, you're contradicting yourself because you're acknowledging that there are eligibility laws that do not require legal standing because ANYONE and EVERYONE who can legally vote has a right to challenge a candidate's eligibility in any particular state, depending on the applicable laws. If someone is denied that right, then they would certainly have legal standing to sue their state over the denial of that right.
This whole thing is not very confusing to me. The above quote from the Twelfth Amendment assumes that the person elected is qualified for the office.
Later on, The 20th Amendment instructs us what we should do “If the president shall have failed to qualify”. Note the word IF.
First,..... It is obvious that the 20th amendment leaves open the possibility that the electors can make an error and elect an unqualified person. So, that elected person still must be qualified before he or she can assume the office . Hence the words “””Failed to qualify”””.
Second..... “””””””A judge just ruled earlier this week in Grinols v Electoral College (an Orly Taitz suit) that a reelected incumbent is both president until his term ends at noon on January 20th and a president-elect until his new term begins at the same time that the first term ends.”””””
So what you are saying is if a mistake was made the first time and an elected person who was not qualified assumed the office President of the United States, a new precedent is set and even though we know he is not qualified, we must now allow him to assume the office and forget the constitutional qualifications?
What has caused you to excerpt your blog?
1) There is no reason for you to excerpt your own material from Wordpress. You’re pimping your blog. But you also comment to posters, so you’re not the worst.
2) It’s amazing the wide range of people who’ve been denied standing over Obama’s forged credentials: Individual citizens, Secretaries of State, Electors to the Electoral College, other candidates...the list is as endless as the number of lawsuits. I say if the Electors to the College don’t have standing, nobody does, and that’s how this will end.
< Look into the latest reports on Harrison J. Bounel, who died in Connecticut in 1977 but whose social security number apparently has been used by Barack Obama since 1980. The same number 042-68-4425 has appeared on IRS tax forms released by Obama for year 2009 income. Some call this identity theft, a common practive by illegal immigrants to the US>
I come across illegal susing many different SSNs all the time. They use them to get utilities or credit or try to and believe it or not they either just invent them, they use them a LOT to get social services because they don’t check to see if they are in use by anyone else! A few years ago I came across a Hispanic lady that had 4 different drivers licenses (there was no mistaking it; all the photos on the ID were her and she had several SSNs that she was collecting benefits under. She didn’t work for some reason, mainly that she didn’t have to. Really makes you angry when you have to work so hard just to make ends meet then you see someone like that partying, taking trips, going to casinos and bingo halls all the time.
Can someone explain the concept here? Is there a prohibition on excerpting blogs?
Is there anything new on this front? Bounel was in the “news” some time ago. Anything NEW?
I'm not talking about the Ankeny ruling in 2008. Indiana had a full trial in 2012, where Orly Taitz called her expert witnesses to testify about the alleged forgery of Obama's birth certificate. The court ruled that her experts hadn't shown any falsity and that Obama was a natural born citizen. Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey also had administrative hearings and held the same thing.
And second, you're contradicting yourself because you're acknowledging that there are eligibility laws that do not require legal standing because ANYONE and EVERYONE who can legally vote has a right to challenge a candidate's eligibility in any particular state, depending on the applicable laws.
I'm not contradicting myself. Standing rules are different in state court and federal court. If you sue in federal court trying to apply state standing rules, the courts will toss you out.
If someone is denied that right, then they would certainly have legal standing to sue their state over the denial of that right.
And they did, in Georgia, Indiana and other states. Those states ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.
What possible reason would someone have for excerpting their own blog?
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.