Posted on 09/13/2009 2:27:53 PM PDT by vrwc1
MISSOURI
Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri House of Representatives sponsored an amendment to the Missouri Constitution in March 2009 that would require “candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens” to provide a birth certificate to the Missouri Secretary of State to confirm their eligibility. A certificate of live birth would not be accepted. Failure to comply would result in the candidate being deemed ineligible to stand. The proposed amendment is part of a “voter’s bill of rights The proposed amendment, House Joint Resolution No. 34, was subsequently withdrawn.[182]
State Representatives Cynthia L. Davis, Timothy W. Jones and Casey Guernsey have committed to participating as plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in Missouri challenging Obama’s citizenship.[183] State Representative Edgar G. H. Emery told reporters in July 2009 that he “questions Obama’s citizenship
Carter did not order it. While cooperation is “required”, it almost never happens until a written order is entered. Even then, the other party stalls until there is an order to compel.
Possible, but it doesn't seem likely, unless the Government tries to introduce a "birth record" document in their arguement for dismissal before full discovery.
My take only, I'm not a lawyer, although my oldest daughter and her husband are. (But I haven't "consulted" with them on this)
You might want to bump a real lawyer with your questions, I'd suggest JAGUSAFR.
If the law isn't interested in evidence and getting at the truth, what good is it?
And lawyers wonder why they are held in such contempt, even by many other lawyers.
yes, and in order to start presenting “evidence and getting at the truth”, one must have knowledge of the law. It is a bit more than “reading the constitution and deciding what it means”.
Justice Douglas agreed that cases such as this are or could be justiciable. He wrote in his OPINION (which means he agrees with some of the arguments made by “birthers” on NBC). The difference is that his OPINION is part of federal case law. The opinions of the posters here are not. (even if they vocally insist that they are.)
The law, like many of our institutions, has become overly preoccuppied with rules and precidence. Sure you have to have rules and precidence provides consistancy, but they need to be used in moderation. They also need to be changed or overturned when they no longer serve their original function or have become impediments to that original function.
But the Constitution was written to be understood by ordinary people, literate people but not specialists. The danger in using all that "infrastructure" of the law to deny enforcement of the Constitution, or allowing it to be so used, is that the people, from whom all legitimacy flows, will lose confidence in the insitution of "the law".
When that happens, things can get ugly, very fast and very ugly.
What case? I'd be interested in reading his OPINON. :).
He’s a nasty piece of work.
whenever there is precedence that needs to be overturned, that is good news. When there is a case you can point to that was heard by SCOTUS, the courts recognize that an effort to overturn it is legitimate legally. Ignoring related court cases gives credence to the argument that “the courts never get involved in this type of thing.”
She can serve discovery anytime she wants to before a scheduling and/or discovery order is entered by the court. If the gummint objects, they can seek a protective order. I know nothing of the background of this case, but it seems from the fact that the US Attorneys have requested any discovery be limited to what she can show is necessary to meet the burden of the Motion to Dismiss, that she may already have served some discovery. To the ultimate question posed by the poster, I’d be surprised if by the end of today anybody’ll have a subpoena to serve on the Hawaii Dept of Health (but that’s from a practical standpoint).
I still have issues with Taitz meeting her burden to show it’s incumbent on the Department of the Army to prove the current occupant’s qualifications. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that orders are lawful. And I KNOW that in this case, that logic may be circular. Just answerin’ the procedural question.
Colonel, USAFR
But my confidence level was low, and so that's why I wanted an explantion of the "niceties".
I still have issues with Taitz meeting her burden to show it’s incumbent on the Department of the Army to prove the current occupant’s qualifications. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that orders are lawful.
The DA is not a party, directly, to the Barnett et. al. vs Obama et. al case, in Judge Carter's Central District of California, Southern Division, court. Just BHO, MO, SecState, SecDef and Vice President (and President of the Senate).
But anyway, evidence to the contrary has been submitted. Wether it is credible or not is another question.
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.