Posted on 07/05/2010 10:32:33 PM PDT by jdirt
Agreed, no matter what ones poliitical persuasion, it is clear that the man who "won" the last election is unAmerican, a man who seeks the purposeful destruction of our country from within.
Helen Tansey is a leader o f the Hillery Democrats who have not accepted being cheated.She is after THE WON , hammers and tongs.
I don’t know, rxsid, I just don’t know. I do think the issue will come to the forefront somehow. It’s just too obvious that he is full of ****, and it’s also obvious that others are helping him hide his little secret. I had to let go of this personally, at least for now, because it was making me very angry, lots of anxiety, all of that.
Watching these judges dump this matter over and over on whatever grounds they can conceive is disgusting to me. I really just cannot watch it.
Take a break, then look at it again.
It should fill you with fighting spirit.
I thought this was why Cheney was being named in one of these lawsuits, but that's not really my point. Nobody sues Congress for passing an unconstitutional law, yet the courts still find laws to be unconstitutional. Finding an action unconstitutional would be the same difference.
As far as McCain having legal standing, if you read the recent district court rejection of the Kerchner appeal, the answer they came up with is no. They have taken it on themselves to decide that no one can claim an injury from a president being ineligible, thus no one can claim standing.
It's already taking a toll. Obama has had to address his “issues.” His people have had to addrress his “issues.”.
His “issues” are address by the chattering class. Half of the American People have a problem with Obama's "issues."
Obama is a fraud and a usurper. He occupies the Oval Office as the result of a coup, and he, his people, his network and his financial backers will stop at nothing to retain power.
One never knows which cut will be the mortal cut. Every attack is an important attack -- even the frivolous ones.
It might get to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court will never agree to hear it. Game over.
Great — filed March 5, 2010 — this needs to be filed in every state.
You may be correct, but that by no means should that mean we should “just let this go”.
No.
Only quitters give up for one.
Second, if Washington, and Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson et. all. gave up where would we be?
If we gave up on the beaches of Normandy where would we be?
NEVER GIVE UP when your fight is just, your cause is correct! NEVER GIVE UP, because THAT is the fight worthy of shedding your own blood, sweat, and tears over.
FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE! There is a Price! Pony up and pay it like an American! For it is US who are the beacon of freedom! NOT just a Nation-State! But her Sovereign citizens who will sacrifice and fight for it who are the Beacon!
NEVER GIVE UP!
Well, I cannot argue any of the points you have made. I also cannot argue against the importance of this matter. I have always believed that this NBC situation is a critical mass issue, and I still do.
I can only say, in defense of my earlier post, that watching how this issue was being swept under the rug within the courts was ruining my life. I put it that way, because it was having that serious of an effect on me. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why not even a single judge in this country will let this proceed on merit as opposed to dismissing it.
I expect that even if there was that one judge who allowed this to move forward, that would be instantly appealed to a higher court, and then it would be shut down immediately. I suppose that I have become pessimistic on this issue. I don’t know what to do to solve it.
As to why Judges and courts are punting... that’s easy, not one of them wants to be the source of the decision that removes a president, not the first Black one, and not one with massive support from violent groups like the New Black Panthers, SEIU and a DOJ which is more than happy to break the laws of the land to protect the Usurper. The life of the judge would be at stake I believe. Whether that is a fear for them or not, we know with 100% certainty that the lower courts do NOT want to deal with this, if only because we can see them punting.
I personally believe that each of them has been contacted and made aware that there will be personal ramifications for them if they DO decide in favor of the Law. So they are punting. Not even SCOTUS wants to deal with it because of the Riot potential it creates. However, given that OholyO’s support has just about disappeared, the fact remains, the thug will use any means to achieve his ends, and if that means making the life a of Judge miserable, I don’t think Obama’s machine will hesitate for an instant to do what ever it takes to convince that judge to back off. Legal or not.
Threats are the Norm with OholyO’s administration. Don’t think for an instant that he has not continued that pattern with the Judges involved.
Wow, never noticed before. In your Ozz pic, the Tin Man has an ass.
It is the outright mocking of this valid complaint that's at the root of the frustration.
I thought this was why Cheney was being named in one of these lawsuits, but that’s not really my point. Nobody sues Congress for passing an unconstitutional law, yet the courts still find laws to be unconstitutional. Finding an action unconstitutional would be the same difference.
As far as McCain having legal standing, if you read the recent district court rejection of the Kerchner appeal, the answer they came up with is no. They have taken it on themselves to decide that no one can claim an injury from a president being ineligible, thus no one can claim standing.
According to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (court of first resort) over cases:
1) affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls
2) disputes between the states (original and exclusive jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1251)
Currently, the US Supreme Court only exercises original jurisdiction in disputes between the states; per 28 USC § 1251, the Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the US District Courts over cases involving ambassadors. These cases are typically heard in US District Court, although the Supreme Court still has the right to try them under original jurisdiction.
In all other cases the Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction (the court of last resort).
Former Vice President Cheney was named as a defendant for his failure to implement a law. The former Vice President did not ask for objections to the certification of the electoral college vote which was required by the law on certifying electoral college votes in a joint session of Congress.
Since Kerchner v Obama had nothing to do with McCain’s standing, any mention of Senator McCain in that decision is dicta.
A different court with a lawsuit actually naming John McCain as a plaintiff or co-plaintiff might well grant him standing to sue as the only person with a reasonable chance to show injury-in-fact from Obama’s election. One judge contemplated granting standing to Alan Keyes but decided against it since Keyes wasn’t on the ballot in 50 states plus the District of Columbia and had no chance of being elected. McCain had a real and palpable chance of being elected.
Judge Land is also another stooge as are the others. The judiciary is corrupt. Go back to your TV clicker.
And, IMO, that judge was wrong to not grant standing to Keyes. Win or lose is not the only thing hanging in the balance. If Obama was not in the running, might have Keyes gotten more votes? More votes effects the standing of the party, fund raising potential, the ability to get on the ballot in more states in 2012, etc.
Not granting standing to Keys because there's no way to tell if he would have gotten more votes would be like not granting standing to McCain, because who knows if McCain would have won against, say, Hillary? "Mr. McCain can not prove injury in fact, therefore he has no standing." Heh.
It's the final solution. The ability to exercise it was and is protected by it's very own amendment to the Constitution.
Whether it's time for the citizens to, in the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #28, "rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." is another issue of course. But if this "the citizens have no standing" sort of thing goes on, it will be, sooner or later.
So your position is that someone not eligible to the office of President, can somehow be President, and thus be entitled to the powers and privileges of that office? One does not become President merely by or upon taking the oath. All the other requirements, including the eligibility requirements, must also be satisfied. The Courts are fully capable of making a determination as to whether they have been or not.
If they have not, then a President is not being removed. Rather there as been an ineligible and thus unlawful occupant of the office.
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.
That doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I'm a former Captain, without any of his awards and decorations, or sacrifices, and I'm often wrong.
No the city was not fakery, the Wizard was, but not the city. It was a center of commerce, Oz type commerce to be sure, but commerce none the less.
BTW, How can you have not seen the movie? It's iconic and has been for what, 4 generations. And that does not count those who were adults when it first came out. It's probably closer to 5 generations in some cases. It's been shown pretty much annually on TV, around Thanksgiving initially, since 1956. It was first released in 1939, when my parents were just starting high school, and I in turn have grandchildren, who may or may not have seen it yet, but most of my contemporaries grandchildren as little older than mine.
So your position is that someone not eligible to the office of President, can somehow be President, and thus be entitled to the powers and privileges of that office? One does not become President merely by or upon taking the oath. All the other requirements, including the eligibility requirements, must also be satisfied. The Courts are fully capable of making a determination as to whether they have been or not.
If they have not, then a President is not being removed. Rather there as been an ineligible and thus unlawful occupant of the office.
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.
That doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. I’m a former Captain, without any of his awards and decorations, or sacrifices, and I’m often wrong.
Judge Carter’s position is that Democratic Party Primary Election opponents and then Obama’s general election opponents had one year and nine months to have him declared ineligible and they failed do so.
In the interim, those opposed to Obama’s presidency can present enough proof of his ineligibility to force his resignation or they can apply enough political pressure to have him impeached and removed via trial in the Senate. There is also another election on the first Tuesday of November, 2012 when he can be fired by the American people who care enough to vote.
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.