| “What does that mean in plain English?” The reason Judge Carter is even proceeding (despite questions on Standing and Jurisdiction) is that Orly proposes a conundrum: As she said at the last hearing (perhaps not as clear as it could be stated), is that impeachment is not appropriate because impeachment can only be used for a legitimate president (not to mention that impeachment is NOT a Judicial function anyway). Since Obama – as Orly argues – is not legitimate, he does not qualify for impeachment or any government “protection” or representation “as president” and thus justifies why the suit may be tried OUT of the DC Court. Orly contends that Carter’s venue is mandated to use Quo Warranto ONLY IF the Judge decides Obama is legitimate for the position of President. In other words, Orly said not only can CARTER take the “Quo Warranto” case, but he is oath-bound to do so.
How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him? Does Quo Warranto apply if he is indeed illegitimate in the first place?
WHO protects the rights of a Political THIRD Party in the primarily two-party political system of the Legislature (the US Congress)?
CARTER then discussed the two-party system and viability of third-party candidates, and expressed that he thinks having the ability for third-party candidates is important, and then he said he still wants to know why no one has raised this issue. (from the WaveyDavey report).
That, in my opinion, is what Orly proposes – and what give Judge Carter pause. As he said to Orly and Kreep at the end, “I’m most concerned about standing,” and to the US attorneys he said, “I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.” Then, turning back to Orly and Kreep, he said “if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.” I think Judge Carter may be attempting to carve out new case law out of existing precedence in this unique situation — tweaking "checks and balances" in cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and others — to put forth a decision on Mr. Barack Hussein Obama – the candidate, not the President. |
Thank you for the summary. There are many legal technicalities in the day-to-day proceedings that I sometimes find difficult to follow.
I believe Judge Carter is seeing this from a historic legal perspective and is trying to be especially careful and thorough. I applaud his efforts. May he stand firm!
I pray that the truth will be revealed.
It has always seemed to me that the correct basis on which to address the problem is the position that he cannot act as President.
A Military Officer cannot be forced to obey commands issued under his authority.
It seems to me that the Military cannot live with the situation in which they don't have a CIC.
I have been after Farrah to delegate one of his writers to go interview the Judge Advocate General to find out what the international law ramifications are to military in the field. I believe legal liabilities and immunities turn on lawful orders.
It would seem that only the third party candidates would have standing against candidate Obama and of course McCain but he is MIA.
Judge Carter might dismiss the parts that deal with military officers and focus on just the issue of whether Obama was an eligible candidate.
That should eliminate the Quo Warranto issues and allow for discovery. If discovery shows the Obama has lied and does not have a long form birth certificate, then I agree it will get kicked up to SCOTUS very quickly.