You keep asserting the the Judiciary determines the Constitutionality of the Constitution.
Let me give you and example of erroneous thinking such as yours but from a different source. This was pulled from an online source having nothing to do with today’s current events. It’s a 2nd grade explanation yet still manages to get it wrong. My comments in []’s
“The U.S. Congress can pass laws that are consistent with constitutional provisions, [Checks okay]
but ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court is charged with interpreting and enforcing constitutional provisions. [SCOTUS cannot enforce anything. It’s enforced by Public Opinion and the political process, the Supreme Court is not ‘Charged’. It assumed the responsibility of judicial review as a fall out from Maybury vs. Madison.]
The Supreme Court’s authority even includes the power to declare Congressional acts unconstitutional” [only common or statue laws written by Congress are deemed unconstitutional, through the assumed Judicial review from Maybury vs. Madison]
Furthermore, In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings — I.E impeachment and subsequent trial.
So, this judicial review is not a provision or an enumeration of the Constitution. It is an inferred provision found in Maybury vs. Madison.
I asked you 3 times for the provision (enumeration) or inference. You could provide neither. One doesn’t exist, and the other you didn’t even know about. So how much credence am I supposed to give you when you don’t even know what you’re talking about ... Pal.
Just joining the scrum. Hypothetical: Tomorrow (when there’s free beer) someone steps forward and declares that he was paid by the DNC to forge the long form birth certificate put forward for public view by the White House. He produces incontrovertible evidence including a photocopy of the funds transfer to his personal bank account by the DNC treasurer. What if any Judicial or Congressional actions should follow?
>> You keep asserting the the Judiciary determines the Constitutionality of the Constitution.
There you go again. I have never said any such thing.
Nixon v. United States (1993) is not relevant. I have never said that impeachment is subject to judicial review.
You attack strawmen.
Here is my position:
The Judiciary has the exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
Questions regarding provisions of the U.S. Constitution are decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (when a case is brought to the Court).
The definition of the “natural born citizen” provision is a question of law. The question has evaded review and is is capable of repetition. The question must be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Legislature’s authority to impeach in no way constrains the Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility either bars a person from being seated in office or removes a sitting person from office.
Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility.
Ray has never said that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of the Constitution.
He’s said that SCOTUS is the proper authority to INTERPRET the Constitution’s provisions. I would add that the Constitution lists cases in which the judiciary is to rule in matters of LAW and matters of FACT - either in their original jurisdiction or in appeals.
There is NOT ONE Secretary of State who could have actually found Obama eligible, because there IS NO LEGALLY VALID US BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA. How could any of those 50 SOS’s find Obama eligible when the HI registrar could not verify who his parents are, where he was born, or when he was born? Exactly HOW did they find him eligible without knowing any of those things - ALL OF WHICH factor into a person’s eligibility?
The fact of the matter is that they all - every last stinkin’ one of them - abdicated their duties and violated their oath of office. And every last stinkin’ one of them was informed in advance that the HI registrar had refused to verify any of Obama’s birth facts. They all knowingly broke their oaths. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Your reasoning seems to be that as long as they all raped us, it must not have been rape at all.
Sick.