.
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
Good find! Thanks, Starwise.
I’m... *cautious* enough to think that he may be able to stuff all of his documentation into “Presidential Archives” for some time. Even so, the truth will out sooner or later, and lots of people will say, “I voted for *that*?!”
If I thought the courts had jurisdiction, I’d support that argument. I understand the argument that if he’s not a natural born citizen (and I don’t believe he is due to his British citizenship at birth) then he has usurped the office, but how does one prove that? If we can’t prove it (without discovery), then he is assumed to be holding the office legally.
You’ve heard all the reasons why that is so:
- The secretaries of state certified him to be on the ballot.
- The electoral college cast their votes for him.
- The Congress certified the electoral votes and didn’t submit written challenges.
- The Chief Justice swore him into office, twice.
The time for challenging his eligibility through this particular avenue has long since passed. Yeah, that sucks. But it’s where we stand.
I don’t know the answer (maybe quo warranto), but I truly believe that the law doesn’t support these eligibility cases (standing or jurisdiction), especially Taitz’s but that’s another subject.
.
OOOOoh .. thank you. My fault, sorry. I didn’t search that. I’ll excerpt it.
Welcome ..
We challenged it and were ignored by the elected officials and the State electors. So the courts have to settle it. But we’ll see if they do their duty to uphold the constitution. No one else has.
You are right. Leo’s case in DC might become something. But I am not sure Leo is much more than a yapper.
The KosKiddies are already saying that. I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago (or so) where I excerpted their comments on that very subject. I believe they were upset about Van Jones at the time. It was hilarious!
I could be wrong, but I thought that the Presidential Records applied only to the documents created by a sitting president and not to documents prior to his term.
Judges of 2 minds on Obama’s birthplace allegations
Georgia judge dismisses a suit as ‘frivolous,’ while Santa Ana judge is proceeding toward trial.
*snip*
In the ongoing sideshow to the Obama presidency, Land called the case “frivolous” and threatened to sanction Taitz if she brought another such suit before him.
Meanwhile in Santa Ana, U.S. District Judge Carter continues not only to consider a similar suit by Taitz, but has weathered incomplete fillings by Taitz, her effort to expel two of her clients from the case (rejected), her request that a magistrate judge be removed from the case (denied), her effort to boot a fellow attorney from the case (unlikely), and her effort to have a witness deliver testimony during an administrative hearing (denied).
*snip*
But as far as Land is concerned, there was no argument when it comes to Obama’s birthplace.
*snip*
“It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought,” Land said.
*snip*
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.
“If President Obama fits the qualifications under the rules of the court, the longer the delay the more credibility it lends to the complaint,” he said at a Sept. 8 hearing. “If President Obama does not meet the court’s requirements, the delay also causes a problem.”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-taitz-land-2572977-carter-judge
That's my point. They ignored us because we had no tangible proof.
So the courts have to settle it.
Orly had the perfect opportunity to make that case in response to the DOJ's assertion that it was up to Congress to resolve any questions of eligibility. She ignored a golden opportunity.
DITTO!!
Didn't Taitz file her lawsuit before the election and against *citizen* Obama, not President Obama?
That is a good find, too! They actually reported on it. That is a shocker. I wonder if Fox News is looking into it. What do you think?
Yes, maybe she did. But the judge knows it from the documentation she gave to him.
There were cases before he got into office. There was also letters sent to State electors before they voted. And ofcourse, McLame as asked to find out by Republicans as well. Then we all wrote letter to congresscritters before they voted to make sure he’s eligible before voting.
Have no clue ... at one point, there was
an interview .. maybe at the last hearing,
with someone there from Fox. I found this
last Wegener interview from Oct. 5 very
interesting with Wiley Drake, after the
Taitz segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKikWRt_DwY&feature=player_embedded
I think this one was filed on Jan. 20th at around 3:00 PM or maybe that was when she tried to serve it. I’m not sure.
From the unofficial 10/5 transcript, Pages 16-17:
CARTER then said the government has said that the government should he solve [sic] this issue. Once the president has taken office we're in a different situation. Prior to that the Electoral College could have addressed it, and that would have been the time to file these lawsuits.
You (TAITZ) filed on the day of the inauguration. Why file on election day? There was then a long discussion about the exact date and time that these papers were filed.
TAITZ said, I filed before he was inaugurated.
THE COURT: Well, according to the time stamp it was filed at 3:00 p.m. Why wait until 3:00 when we already have a duly-sworn president rather earlier in the day or much prior to that?
TAITZ responded that she had another case in November before he was duly sworn in.
THE COURT: He was already sworn in before this case ever got to my desk. You had a lack of diligence. Why wait until the last day?
I'm going to make a finding that the opportunity was lost for the Electoral College to address it. Why did you wait until the last day, and until 3:00 p.m. at that?
TAITZ replied, I did file another case...>>snip<<
CARTER stopped her, saying that he was deeply concerned about whether her plaintiffs had standing, and he reiterated the different categories of plaintiffs. With respect to retired military and active military he said it was conjectural and hypothetical. With respect to state elected officials and candidates he said essentially the same thing. It's questionable as to whether these groups have standing.
Why wouldn’t Carter and all the way up to SCOTUS have jurisdiction to determine eligibility as per the constitution and leave aside the removal from office aspect? Pending the outcome, I’d think standing for Quo Warranto would be a lot easier to determine as every citizen would have standing based on the violation of the constitution. Then send in the Marshals.
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.