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 ...
There is no “assumption” in the 12th Amendment, it is definitive and final as long as there are no written objections to the certification of the votes of the Electors.
My personal opinion is that the 20th Amendment presupposes challeges to Electors that would take a President-Elect below the “majority of the Electors” threshold.
For example, at the Joint Session of Congress held on January 4th, if one Senator and One Representative had lodged written objections to Obama’s electors in California and Ohio, that would have taken him down to only 259 electoral votes which is below 270 electoral votes needed for a majority and he could not assume the office of President until those objections were resolved by Congress, if ever. He would not have “qualified” and Biden would be acting president until resolution, or if there was no resolution by noon tomorrow, January 20th to give Obama 270 Electors, Congress could have selected a president under the provisions of the 20th Amendment.
But there were no written objections.
The latest developments are on www.birtherreport.com and Orly’s website.
Length?
That’s why I’m asking. I noticed before that freepers complain when someone excerpts from a blog. If someone copies and pastes the whole thing, that seems unfair to the writer; but I see your point about excerpting from your own blog. I’m relatively new and just trying to figure out the rules.
Thanks.
It’s not like the “Obama is ineligible” movement didn’t do its darn’dest in Hawai’i to reverse Hawai’i Department of Health policy decisions on the release of Barry’s Vital Records. The courts always sided with the Department of Health in every legal challenge:
Constituion Party v Lingle (Hawaii Supreme Court)
Hamrick v Fukino (US District Court for Hawaii)
Justice v Fuddy (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals)
Martin v Lingle (Hawaii Supreme Court)
Martin v Attorney General Bennett (State Court)
Sunahara v Hawaii Dept. of Health (State Court)
Taitz v Astrue {Freedom of Information Act} (US District Court for Hawaii)
Taitz v Fuddy (State Court)
Taitz v Nishimura (Hawaii Supreme Court)
Taitz v Obama (Hawaii Office of Elections)
Thomas v Hoseman (US District Court for Hawaii)
Wolf v Fuddy (State Court)
All I’m saying is that I would have loved to see what Hawai’i Department of Health would have done with a Court Order from an actual JUDGE of a court of competent jurisdiction or what they would have done with a Congressional subpoena. They never had to respond to either.
So What? So you are concluding that the only way a President elect can fail to qualify during the time period after the electors vote and before the inauguration, is if there is an objection from one senator and one congressman? So Sorry, I can not agree with you.... That is not the way I read the 20th amendment. Using your assumption, if after the electors vote, clear evidence becomes public that definitely reveals a President elect "failed to qualify" Unless there is an objection, the office of the President can be constitutionally usurped? I don't think so.
I believe during this time period, a president elect can fail to qualify many different ways....For example.... 1)Assuming room temperature. 2)Mental illness. 3)Committing a crime. 4)Treason. 5)Evidence showing that Forged documents were used to hide ineligibility. (Obumer) Look at congress.... Not one makes an objection!! Yet The evidence is very clear that a crime was committed. I believe a grave situation like this was anticipated and that is why they use the words ".... failed to qualify.
Ok, I see your point.
Who is it then that decides that a president-elect has failed to qualify? Congress? The Judiciary?
It would have helped the cause immensely if there had been a criminal investigation of document fraud and forgery. But there was no such investigation by a duly authorized law enforcement agency, by a prosecuting attorney such as a District Attorney, a state Attorney General, a US Attorney or an Independent Counsel. And there was no congressional investigation with a finding.
Every lawsuit that raised issues of document fraud, forgery or identity theft was decided in Obama’s favor and seven courts ruled that he is indeed a natural born citizen. Without a definitive ruling there were no grounds for any entity to rule that he failed to qualify.
When Orly Taitz raised issues of forgery and identity theft in 2009 in US District Court in Georgia, the judge fined her $20,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. SCOTUS refused to intervene and she had to pay the sanction.
Now that is a really good question.... And I believe the answer is easy..... Anyone who can read, comprehends and takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If there is a disagreement on how the constitution wants us to operate our government, then, it is the purview of the courts settle the matter. Also, in certain circumstances congress can weigh in. This is one of those circumstances. However, we can not even get one to object!!!
""""It would have helped the cause immensely if there had been a criminal investigation of document fraud and forgery. But there was no such investigation by a duly authorized law enforcement agency,.....""""
There was and is a through investigation and it is helping the cause. The Sheriffs department in Maricopa county is the largest law enforcement agency in the state of Arizona and one of the largest in the country. At the request of constituents, the duly elected Sheriff Arpaio launched an authorized investigation focusing on the document posted on the official government White House website that Obama represented as a copy of his actual birth certificate. This investigation is still ongoing but has come to the conclusion that the document is a forgery . AND So far, not one court,government agency or major political commentator will even entertain the possibility of bringing it forward.
""""Every lawsuit that raised issues of document fraud, forgery or identity theft was decided in Obama’s favor and seven courts ruled that he is indeed a natural born citizen. Without a definitive ruling there were no grounds for any entity to rule that he failed to qualify.""""
Are you assuming these court rulings were the result of normal judicial procedures? Ask your self, how can a court make a finding without allowing discovery and hearing testimony from both sides? I am sure you will agree with me this is all very corrupt. The courts need to do their duty. Congress needs to do their duty. And Now.... we must do our duty. We must stand strong and never give up. For the sake of all who come after us.
The article is wrong. Standing is used in ALL legal cases. You can’t go to court based on your being unhappy about something. Nor can you go to court if the only harm you have suffered has been suffered equally by all 300+ million citizens. You need to have suffered some specific harm, and you need to have something the court has authority to do to deal with that harm.
The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
Further, courts HAVE heard the merits of these cases at times, and rejected them.
And states HAVE followed their laws. In Arizona, I’ve written to support efforts to require candidates to document their birth place and age with actual birth certificates, but the law doesn’t require that. You can’t argue Obama violated the law of your state if your state allows a letter from the nominating party as adequate proof.
I strongly believe all candidates should be required to release birth certificates, tax records, school records, and work records - but that is NOT what the law of Arizona says.
Judge Carroll was sarcastic. Lots of judges are. Including conservative judges. Sarcasm is not illegal.
If you think otherwise, submit an ethical complaint about him to the state.
So, in a sense it is about standing, but I think it's better seen as a case about choice of venue. You can't have a murder case tried before a probate court - not that the state has no venue to try a murder case, just that a murder case is properly brought before a different court.
"Standing" is about the suitability of the plaintiff, not about the suitability of the court.
Oh Really? In terms of the document presented as the copy of Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate on the official White House web site, tell us, what court has allowed discovery,had experts examine the evidence and ruled on its merits?
“In terms of the document presented as the copy of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate on the official White House web site...”
What the courts care about is this: HAWAII says Obama was born there.
The moment the government of Hawaii says Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, the courts will take the accusation seriously. Until then...sorry, but courts are not interested in what is posted on the web.
Why don’t you get on your trolley and go back to make believe land?
He did not address questions of law or fact.
Yes, he did. He said the court lacked jurisdiction and had no remedy to the proposed problem, and therefor the case was dismissed. ANY time a court determines it lacks jurisdiction, it will dismiss a case.
Let us try again
You said
"""...... courts HAVE heard the merits of these cases at times, and rejected them""""""
So I asked You.
"In terms of the document presented as the copy of Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate on the official White House web site, tell us, what court has allowed discovery,had experts examine the evidence and ruled on its merits?"
You did not answer my question but rather attempted to change the subject!
Please, first answer my question and then we can talk about what the courts want.....
Frankly, I do not know where he was born. I suspect he was born in Kenya but I am not sure. However, I am certain that the document he presented to show us that was born in Hawaii is a digital fabricated fraud.
I did answer your question. No court is concerned about a web page photo of a birth certificate. That is not acceptable evidence. If that is all you have, your case has no merit and will be thrown out. It isn’t a crime to post a false birth certificate on a website, so the courts do not care. Not as long as Hawaii maintains that Obama was born there.
No court will give you any right to discovery based on something that has no value as evidence to begin with. Nor does ‘discovery’ mean, “Give me access so I can discover is there is wrong doing”.
The courts HAVE heard the merits of cases. They have thrown out those based on internet pictures, for lack of evidence. They have rejected those based on Obama Sr not being a US citizen, because the ruling of WKA in 1898 convinced them that was the right interpretation of the law.
In most of the hundreds of cases, the court has ruled they either lack jurisdiction (it doesn’t fall under their authority) or that they have no means to provide relief (there is nothing they can do about it under the law).
That is the way courts work. They will also reject cases where the plaintiff has suffered no damage unique to him.
When a court rejects your case, it is making a ruling on the case’s merits. It is saying it HAS NO MERIT.
“However, I am certain that the document he presented to show us that was born in Hawaii is a digital fabricated fraud.”
It wouldn’t matter if Obama drew it with a crayon. A picture posted on the web is not evidence. It isn’t a crime, and it isn’t what the court would rely on, so the court doesn’t care. Obama could post a picture of dog poop as his birth certificate, and no court would care.
“”””What the courts care about is this: HAWAII says Obama was born there.......””””
You know, I do not recall that there was any court that has heard any evidence that Hawaii claimed Obama was born there. I could be corrected. I think your talking about correspondence between Hawaii and attorney generals of some states. If evidence were submitted that Hawaii claimed Obama was born there, a plaintiff’s request for discovery would be granted and plaintiffs attorneys would be able to depose and cross exsamine Hawaian officials.
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.