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.
When the government breaks a law, what can the normal everyday citizen do about it?
Kerchner is military. How could it be possible that military personnel would not have standing to sue the government for not giving them a lawful CINC?
People keep saying that the election was certified by Congress, but it wasn’t. Not legally. The law concerning how that was required to be done was not fulfilled. Congress did NOT give the US military members a lawful CINC, and Kerchner and any other military personnel should certainly have standing to sue.
If the line the judges were told to take is that McCain or Palin are the only people who would have “standing”, then McCain’s shushing of Palin takes on a whole different level of significance, and John McCain should be answering some very, very pointed questions.
If the line the judges were told to follow was to deny standing to anybody but McCain, then McCain is the critical person to the success of their plan. There are only a few people who would have to be threatened into submitting to the communist coup. Maybe they already knew McCain would never challenge. When the run on the bank happened, who exactly did McCain hear from about what was going on? He suspended his campaign to go back to DC. I would dearly love to see who all talked to him privately during that time.
How does this statement set with you, in terms
of reality, veracity and application to the
Founders’ documented intent for a Constitutional
potus for this brave new nation for which so many
had lost fortunes, suffered, bled, sacrificed,
and, in many cases, died?
~~~~~
“Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident.”
“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?”
Easy answer — Sandy Berglar’s slap on the wrist and the ongoing Able Danger coverup prove there’s a kamizar system in D.C. It’s obvious to people who seriously research things like that for a number of years.
If a person is not eligible wouldn’t taking in millions of campaign funds be considered criminal fraud?