Posted on 10/12/2009 10:27:44 PM PDT by STARWISE
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should.
The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us.
We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.
Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
Link to the treason quote in case context
The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not.
I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. CDR USNR (Ret) Lead Plaintiff Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
~~PING!
yup
Ping to legal discussion of eligibility cases.
Roll call for after-birthers what say you?
Who does this John Marshal guy think he is anyway? Didn’t he get the shadow government message? NWO-Soros says back off we have our puppet, he cost a lot and we aren’t done using him.
Therein lies the problem. None of these courts has the authority to remove a sitting president. (Only D.C. via QW) So the issue isn't (IMO) that these courts are shirking their jurisdictional responsibilities. They are rightfully turning down jurisdiction. Yeah, it sucks! But that's where we stand.
Yup, completely. LoL!
In a decade or three, people young enough to still be around, and old enough to care, will learn why the great concealer refused to release *any* of his history. He will then become appropriately reviled.
Do you have a link back to the transcript? I will make some coffee if you are going to be up a while?
parsy, who is nodding
Let the record reflect that a birther cast the first stone on this thread, as usual.
We’re here to address the subject matter of the thread, which is a legal discussion of whether or not the courts have jurisdiction over the eligibility cases.
Ping to a legal discussion of jurisdiction in the eligibility cases.
UH nice try I see you are learning from Orly, ROFLMAO I didn't cast any stones, they are just rolling around in the anti-birthers heads as usual.
rs
I don’t think it will take that long, do you? We’ve uncovered so much about him in just two short years. Surely he won’t be able to hide for that long.
It’s extremely rude of you to attempt to take STARWISE’s thread off topic by redirecting attention to those whom you prefer not be commenting on the thread.
Please stay on topic.
“But Carter sounds like he wants the legal route played through, and has chastised Taitz not for frivolity but for distractions – particularly her refusal to work with fellow plaintiffs’ attorney Gary Kreep – that threaten to further slow proceedings.”
I think this is salient point. I did not come away with this impression. Do you have a link.
parsy, who is freezing in the midst of global warming
I’ll see if I can find one. Carter has criticized Taitz for pretty much everything under the sun including insulting American mothers of citizens.
Assuming what you say is true and it could be argued otherwise seeing as he would not be President because he would be found unconstitutional, if we had a judcial finding that he is not supposed to be in the Oval Office, we would have a field day rubbing the Congress’ collective nose in the big constitutional mess they made. We could make a big deal about what a danger it is to the Nation to put Marxists in power and permit them control over our education systems.
In addition, soldiers are in danger because of the Muslim’s inability to act as CIC. This would make it official - he is not CIC. We could sue over every unconstitutional move the socialists make and we would have a pattern of them usurping the constitution. About all those Marxist Czars... And the Rinos who abetted the usurption of the constitution...can you say bye-bye?
The possibilities are endless. I think they would want to get rid of him and then we would have plugs or stretch with no real backing or credibility and who were both involved in treason to the constitution.
Material from ocregister.com must be excerpted per publisher.
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.
