February 15th the SCOTUS will hear the case on 0bama’s elegibility .
Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1810), when the Supreme Court issued a “writ of mandamus”, ordering the president to act, and he refused, the president has been “above the law”. Since then, all they can do is stopping his subordinated from acting, as well, not order them to act, either.
So the courts just shrug, and use the excuse that only congress can depose a president by impeaching and convicting him of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. And congress has never had the guts to do that.
Bottom line: once he is elected by the electoral college, the only things that can get him out of office are impeachment or dying. And Woodrow Wilson’s wife is suspected of carrying on in his stead when he was in an extended coma.
..the U.S.A. Surely, folks remember FDR's threat to pack the SCOTUS with his execrable cronies if it didn't toe the line?
Its sad to see so many conservatives fall into the liberal mindset that all disputes can be resolved in a federal court.
No federal court will boot a presidential candidate off fifty ballots. Ever. That is a good thing.
Article II Section 1 of the Constitution grants the States plenary power to appoint Presidential electors. It is there, as our Framers designed, among the State legislatures, that determination of presidential qualifications must be made.
There is no concept of standing in the Constitution.
Also, someone posted the other day the rules by which the nation should proceed if a president is found to be ineligible.
I think it’s a handy excuse for them to use because no judge, Democrat or Republican, wants to touch the issue with a 10-foot pole. Even if they personally think Obama is unqualified, they are probably afraid of the personal consequences, or the consequences for the Judicial branch starting a war with the Executive branch. If they use the “standing” excuse, then they can toss the hot potato without having to ever weigh in on the subject one way or another.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It has been so since the ratification of our Constitutions, State and Federal and the prior Compacts. I wrote this on my signature page years ago and find it ever more truthful:
I now realize that we are infested with parasites; as destructive as termites, dangerous as rabid dogs, and invisible like bed-bug mites. No, I don’t mean the welfare grifters or robbers in our society – indeed I wish they were all we had to worry about.
The real parasites are the lawyers, especially those in any legislative position or the bureaucracies that support them. We have allowed (?) them to create our laws AND interpret our laws. Meanwhile they blithely steal our time, treasure, and heritage “for the common good” – which they consider to be their wallet!
Keep fighting!