I’m thinking about the fact that Dick Cheney never asked the question of whether there were objections, as required by law.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
Who would have “standing” to sue the government for breaking the law - which they did by failing to ask the question?
This whole “standing” issue has me totally confounded. It makes no sense to me at all. If our government breaks the law, who gets to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”? Seems like that’s a First Amendment right, just like freedom of religion, speech, and association. If a person can’t have standing to petition for a redress of grievances when the government breaks laws, would they have standing to sue if their free speech or freedom of religion is violated by Congress?
It just makes no sense to me.
I understand that there are internal procedures for Congress when the rules are broken there, because Congress determines its own rules. But we’re talking about the actual law here - a law requiring the VP to ask if there are objections to the electoral tally. They broke that law. So would the Bush DOJ file criminal charges for something like that, or where is the accountability?
I just don’t understand.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
~~~
My eternal haunting.
Like I said in the post - once the questioning starts there is no simple or safe or easy place to call a halt.
Cheney will have a lot to account for.
The “blood on the floor will be mixed” which is what I suspect is why the RNC is in a big twit about having real Conservatives coming into power.
To make sense of the situation consider; Bush was there to keep the NWO usurpation plans operational and the timeline in place. Obama was their (NWO/CFR/EU-banksters/SorusCrats/fellow traveler folks) choice and he had to be given cover once the deceit was out in front.
Q: Is a government takeover/coup action-plan a conspiracy if it’s done in full view, all players known in public, and without denials of the action plan.
I’m thinking about the fact that Dick Cheney never asked the question of whether there were objections, as required by law.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
Who would have “standing” to sue the government for breaking the law - which they did by failing to ask the question?
This whole “standing” issue has me totally confounded. It makes no sense to me at all. If our government breaks the law, who gets to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”? Seems like that’s a First Amendment right, just like freedom of religion, speech, and association. If a person can’t have standing to petition for a redress of grievances when the government breaks laws, would they have standing to sue if their free speech or freedom of religion is violated by Congress?
It just makes no sense to me.
I understand that there are internal procedures for Congress when the rules are broken there, because Congress determines its own rules. But we’re talking about the actual law here - a law requiring the VP to ask if there are objections to the electoral tally. They broke that law. So would the Bush DOJ file criminal charges for something like that, or where is the accountability?
I just don’t understand.
Just because citizens have the right to petition doesn’t automatically guarantee that they will win on the merits.
When a plaintiff is not granted standing, the prudent thing to do is to present a different plaintiff who would have standing.
The Republican National Committee, Senator John McCain or Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin were my choices for the persons most likely to have been granted standing. I would even throw in Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr as possibly being granted standing by a conservative judge disposed to rule on Obama’s eligibility.
There are NO issues of standing on the CRIMINAL side of the judicial system. If any government official had been charged with a crime or if Obama had been charged with forgery, fraud, or election fraud, standing would not be an issue.