which criminal illegal aliens and terrorists just cannot do alone.
Posted on 10/12/2009 10:27:44 PM PDT by STARWISE
See Post #39.
I’m also wondering where this case has got to. I pray daily for Judge Carter to make the right choice, and pray for his safety from the Kenyan and his goons as he does so.
bump
What part of the second half of that sentence is so hard for Birthers to comprehend? For the record I agree completely with Chief Justice Marshall. And all these Birther cases to date have failed because the plaintiff lacks standing or the court lacks jurisdiction. If Judge Carter decides to dismiss the Keyes case will you still quote Chief Justice Marshall and agree that the court should not take cases where they have no jurisdiction? Or will you follow the Birther model and call him a traitor of corrupt or a coward or some such thing because, after all, Orly Taitz is the most brilliant legal mind to come down the pike in generations and she just can't be wrong?
My wife and I sent challenge letters to ALL of our Florida electors before the counts!!!
It was more important to him (cowardly ruling) to kill the messenger than look at the issue merits!!!
So, in a nutshell, regardless of a candidate’s eligibility for office being elected to the office results in eligibility. If he wasn’t eligible before the election how is it that his election makes him eligible?
Not being a smart ass, honest. I just don’t see how electing him to an office for which he was not eligible suddenly made him eligible.
Isn’t that sort of like saying that even though I don’t have a authentic pilot’s license if I can trick an airline into hiring me to fly for them there’s nothing the FAA can do to keep me out of the cockpit? Or, for that matter can’t even ask me to produce my valid license?
Hue and Cry.
Didn't complain about the ping list in post #2 though.
What part of the first half of that sentence is so hard for Afterbirthers to comprehend???
Excellent question for which the Afterbirthers on this forum and elsewhere have no substantive answer. It needs to be asked and asked again.
It's the Birthers with the comprehension problem because every time a judge concludes that his court does not have jurisdiction or the plaintiff does not have standing y'all start howling about corrupt judge or traitor or coward or Obamoid or some such crap. In your world the judge must act, and jurisdiction and standing be damned. So you're the ones who have the problem with Chief Justice Marshall, not those of us who understand the law and the Constitution.
The Santa Ana judge is still considering (or more likely writing up his decision) the Motion to Dismiss. That's not quite "proceeding toward trial".
"Land called the case “frivolous” and threatened to sanction Taitz if she brought another such suit before him."
Land called Orly's Motion to Reconsider frivolous, and IS going to fine her for filing it.
No, I imagine there are rules about pilots having licenses and ID. You can't put these questions about Presidents in the same context as such routine tasks, because none of these other jobs are specified in the Constitution. The issues we are discussing are constitutional ones.
He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:
"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."
Kerchner added, "The … judges in the … 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.
So then Chief Justice Marshall is a Birther now????
Excellent. Thank you!
This statement doesn't support the Birther lawyer's contention that the court must "take" jurisdiction. He's only saying the court has a responsibility to decide the case IF it has jurisidiction. Note the "if". He also says, above, "this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not".
Didn’t you know that they have a right to discussion but we don’t? After all, they’re defending the Constitution while we are not. /s
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.