Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
I love the way they generally are so pompous, filled with a rectitude that allows them to ignore "seeking the truth."
I believe this issue will go beyond vexng Obama, and if it forces his hand to be more tyrannical, even that will be used to good effect.
Interesting how sacrificial lambs of the left rate no comment from their lord and master.
I love the way they generally are so pompous, filled with a rectitude that allows them to ignore "seeking the truth."
I believe this issue will go beyond vexng Obama, and if it forces his hand to be more tyrannical, even that will be used to good effect.
Interesting how sacrificial lambs of the left rate no comment from their lord and master.
“Then why is Taitz suing Hillary Clinton (listed as Secretary of State), Robert Gates (listed as Secretary of Defense), and Joseph Biden (listed as Vice President and President of the Senate)?”
Because guess what. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense. Joseph Biden is the current Vice President.
Two of the three committed their offenses before they were appointed to cabinet posts, and Gates should be hung for putting our troops in harm’s way without knowing whether ot not obama was ever eligible to hold the position of Commander in Chief.
He is responsible for every American soldier whether deployed or not. It is his duty to know whether the orders he issues are legal.
Unanswered questions are always the first symptom.
I’ll take my dad’s word....He graduated at the top of his law class and clerked in the Federal Court...It is a procedural tools used by the court not a law.
***
Prior to Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), ordinary citizens always had standing to challenge alleged violations of the Constitution ...
I shutter to think what will later happen if the issue does not get a court hearing in which the documentation is produced.
You didn’t answer my question. What actions did Clinton or Biden take before they became members of the cabinet that would result in injury to the plaintiffs?
The case of standing is that there are allegations of a fraudulant election. We have a right to have an honest election. The abridgement of that right by fraud injures at least every voter who did not vote for the suspect and by extension even those who did. A rights violation injures all of those whose rights were violated.
I pick my interpretartion to defend. Do you want to defend having the son of a British father as president and what the founders may have intended?
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
***
Show me where, prior to Frothingham v. Mellon in 1923, the Supreme Court disallowed constitutional challenges brought by ordinary people.
Frothingham introduced the concept as a way for SCOTUS to avoid being swamped with lawsuits ...
Standing is a procedural rule, not a law, and may not even be constitutional - but who is gonna challenge it in front of SCOTUS ???
The Constitution should be amended to allow for constitutional challenges of eligibility ...
No, I believe what the founders intended is crucial to the case.
The DOJ is referencing Federalist Papers, No. 68 in their Motion to Dismiss:
___________________________________________________
Federalist Papers, No. 68 - March 12, 1788
The Constitution of the United States - September 17, 1789
Funny that the DOJ didnt reference the newer document...
Maybe advise Barry Dunham-Soetoro thast he should show his long form BC and prove he is eligible
In two of the three instances you mentioned, the government was the prosecutor. They could not also provide defense. Thus Clinton was required to obtain private counsel.
In the civil suit, the DOJ couldn't defend him because the suit was concerning actions he took as Governor of Arkansas. I would assume THAT was well known.
It was the original suit that brought about the impeachment and perjury charges.
And your point is what, exactly? I already told YOU that.
The case of standing is that there are allegations of a fraudulant election. We have a right to have an honest election. The abridgement of that right by fraud injures at least every voter who did not vote for the suspect and by extension even those who did. A rights violation injures all of those whose rights were violated.
***
Oh, I heartily agree - my point is that especially when a basic Constitutional tenet is in question, upon reasonable grounds, that ANY citizen should have standing.
My point about standing itself is that it was a rule trumped up by SCOTUS as a way to skirt the myriads of lawsuits that were being filed at the time ...
Misleading. The State of Hawaii has never confirmed the Obama COLB for authenticity that DailyKos or "Factcheck".org have posted online if the document was ever issued by the state, in fact they have refused to.
Yes theree is injury to every American who took part in the election at least...
Plus our dependant children
Are you answering my posts without reading them?
“As for the rest of the defendants, they either knew, or should have known, as leaders of their party, that obama was not a legitimate candidate. Their failure to do due diligence is what this is about.”
“The DOJ is under no obligation to defend any of them since the actions or nonactions in question were before they held any office in the administration.”
I never said that standing was a law. Technically it is a doctrine.
Umm. No, you didn’t tell me that. I brought it up. You have nitpicked your way through my posts and answered wrongly, then gone back to try and make it seem as if I am the one who doesn’t understand what’s going on.
Let’s not do that anymore, shall we?
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.