Posted on 07/05/2010 10:32:33 PM PDT by jdirt
Mario Apuzzo from the beginning said this case is going all the way to the Supreme Court. As news of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals wears off, take heart in the knowledge, plaintiffs were not expecting a positive ruling. It wasn't too long ago the New Haven firefighters case was overturned after an appeals court voted 2 -1 against.
I woke up this morning with the nine justices names running through my mind, must have been the bbq sausage. BTW how was your 4th?
What is good and at the same time lamentable, is the out of hand dismissal of the Kerchner case. Mario Apuzzo has on his website, "A Place To Ask Questions" articles and essays discussing the pertinent facts of his case. On June 30, Apuzzo updated us with the news his case was in the hands of the 3rd Appeals Court in Philadelphia. Hardly had the ether dried on the pixels of his article, before news 2 days later, of the out right rejection of his appeal. What is good, is it only took 48 hours to get a decision, only two days were wasted, before the case can move up the ladder to the Supreme Court.
What was bad, besides the whole process of mucking around with this Usurper business, is the clownish Catch-22 the appeals court gave as their justification to dismiss. In essence they said we dismissed the Berg case for lack of standing, and this is just another identical case of "no standing". But if you read the ruling against Berg, you'll see the reason for dismissing his case was not related to the Kerchner case as stated Friday.
The Berg case was thrown out for lack of standing because the ruling stated "any person has a right to run for president, irregardless of their eligibility status, the test of eligibility cannot be applied unless and until that person actually wins the election and takes the oath. Therefore Berg was dismissed because he filed in October 2008, a month before the election. The appeals court wanted to ensure every jackalope and freak in the country weren't impinged upon in their efforts to be the prez.
Mario Appuzzo took that timing issue into account, he didn't file his case until January 20, 2009. His time stamp on his electronic filing indicates it was filed as Obama was actually taking the oath of office. Hmmm no standing as in Berg v Obama? It sure doesn't ring true. Not as written by the 3rd circuit appeal when you hold up both cases side by side.
A cute Catch-22 the 3rd circuit dreamed up. You can't be heard before someone is elected, but on the other hand once that person gets elected now you can't be heard because now the prior case's dismissal precludes it. Sounds like a case of judical PMS, one bitchy irrational thought, justified by another equally bitchy irrational thought.
We've got November and we've still got a future ruling from the Supreme Court due us. We also must press our state governments to pass eligibility legislation enforceable prior to the 2012 election. If these fail us then we must take up arms. In the mean time, if we see no meaningful representation after the November 2010 election, we must take to the streets. The time is waning for maintaining a peaceful posture in our protests and assemblies. We need to escalate the costs to the forces behind the usurpation of our government. Rioting and destroying property in Smallville, USA will only hurt the local people, most likely people who agree with us. But there are the 50 State Capitals and Washington DC itself. If we have no just government what do we need these buildings to house these scoundrels for, to mock us?
I've mentioned a couple of our hopes in this endeavor to wrest America from the hands of the Usurper, now I'll close by listing our greatest strength. We've got God.
If God is for us, who can be against us?
Romans 8:31
It isn’t going to go anywhere.
The illegal president is being protected.
It is a catch 22 no matter what action is taken or when.
Just a humble suggestion, if you want to keep your sanity, just let this go, because he isn’t going to be removed via a court no matter what the argument is.
The judiciary is utterly corrupt, just like the rest of our government.
A reasonable course of action and one that I fully support.
If these fail us then we must take up arms.
This, however, is the idiotic ramblings of a psychopath.
A conservative majority is being offered to us, if we want it. This kind of rhetoric will insure we don't get it.
“The Berg case was thrown out for lack of standing because the ruling stated “any person has a right to run for president, irregardless of their eligibility status,”
I can’t find this quote in the appeal ruling he is referring to. Can anyone find it?
It was wrong for him to state anything about arms. That is not a solution.
If any of this goes anywhere, I will eat my hat and post the video on Youtube.
And this is what our judicial system has to resort to in order to further mock our Constitution.
Every darter-loving environmentalist, cross-hating atheist, left wing nutcase with a gripe is always granted "standing" for their case to be heard. But when there is a flagrant violation of our most sacred document, obvious to everyone with a brain, they resort to Catch-22s to keep from having to hear the case on the merits.
Their contrived rules of "standing" are subjectively and prejudicially applied and as evidenced in this case subverts the very purpose of why they wear those black robes and sit in those big chairs.
Their day to answer for their decisions is coming -- sooner than they think.
Depends what those arms are??? Armed with the facts regarding Article II of the Constitution and Obama's absence of bonafides, that we did not have at our disposal a year ago, but that we now have in possession, we need to get legs and descend upon every level of government, from city hall to state Capitol to demand answers and accountability. We can anticipate what their excuses will be now -- but those excuses will not find their target.
ping
I understand that, and I also agree with you, Man50D. What I mean to say is that expecting anyone in this federal government to uphold the constitution against the person who calls himself Obama is folly.
They aren’t going to remove him, not for any reason.
They democrats care only about power, and whatever it takes to achieve that power.
The republicans are useless, timid mice.
There isn’t a federal judge anywhere in this country who will remove our wonderful, first, black arab muslim.
I’m not suggesting we abandon the constitution, I am suggesting that our government and its judiciary has abandoned us, because they have.
Let's not pretend this mental patient was speaking metaphorically...from the article...
If these fail us then we must take up arms. In the mean time, if we see no meaningful representation after the November 2010 election, we must take to the streets. The time is waning for maintaining a peaceful posture in our protests and assemblies. We need to escalate the costs to the forces behind the usurpation of our government. Rioting and destroying property in Smallville, USA will only hurt the local people...But there are the 50 State Capitals and Washington DC itself. If we have no just government what do we need these buildings to house these scoundrels for, to mock us?
It is a catch 22.
20% of the population, some driving around in their Cadillac escalades, will no doubt riot when their brother is disqualified.
The President of the world can kiss my a$$.
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office.
However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009
Judge Carter is a former Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. He is a Vietnam War combat veteran and the winner of the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart in the Battle of Khe Sahn.
What this ignores is that the courts have the responsibility to review cases and controversies under the Constitution. If they can find that a law is unconstitutional, then it’s not different to find that another action of the legislative branch is unconstitutional, such as certifying an ineligible president.
What this ignores is that the courts have the responsibility to review cases and controversies under the Constitution. If they can find that a law is unconstitutional, then it’s not different to find that another action of the legislative branch is unconstitutional, such as certifying an ineligible president.
John McCain may well have legal standing to sue but he has not filed suit.
From Wikipedia:
“There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . .” The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only “in the last resort, and as a necessity”.
The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.
Standing requirements
There are three standing requirements:
Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Prudential limitations
Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially-created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute:
Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others, for example, a party suing that a law prohibiting certain types of visual material may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of others engaged in similar displays might also be damaged as well as those suing. Additionally, third parties who don’t have standing may be able to sue under the next friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the qui tam provision of the Civil False Claims Act.
Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest
Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.
Zone of Interests - The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.”
The question (or statement) isn't weather or not the majority of the "feds" in the three branches have trampled upon our Constitution...the question is, what do "we" (who care about the Constitution) do about it?
Do we vote in a new round of politicians and hope that they uphold the Constitution? Do we demand that they right these wrongs? If so, does that include demanding that they expose Barry for the usurper he is? Or, do we allow him to go down in history as successfully usurping an entire 4 year term?
IMO, the issue must be pressed until it's no longer ignored, or catch-22'd away.
"Kerchner v Obama- All Is Not Lost"
New tagline...
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.