Posted on 03/07/2011 9:28:25 AM PST by charlie72
On the statement by Judge Donald Carter: In all the hearings previous, he was really zipping along toward an airing of eligibility issues, granting standing to the petitioners. Then he suddenly reversed, and OBTW, had acquired a new law clerk from the defendant’s then counsel, Perkins Coie (Seattle.) And, if memory serves, this particular clerk had an unusual credential an African background perhaps Kenyan, not African-American, African.
I think you’ve arrived at an accurate view of this matter.
Who besides the SCOTUS has any jurisdiction in this eligibility question?
That being said, they should have submitted the case for review by the Attorney General, considering it contained a criminal complaint with valid evidence a crime was and still is being committed.
This is where the courts are failing in their duties. Not surprising. It has been going on for decades.
"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
A lack of constitntional qualifications is a basis for impeachment and upon conviction, removal from office.
There isn't any other constitutional way to remove a healthy and living president from office, for any reason. Period.
To be a “political question” in terms of the judiciary, the Constitution has to directly and specifically give the job to a different branch of the government. Where does the Constitution ever give any other branch the job of determining who is or isn’t eligible to be President? Specific reference, please.
If a political process (other than the political process of amending the Constitution) nullifies the Constitution then we are not a Constitutional republic.
My feelings are hurt. I guess I'll have to try harder.
It denied the motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves? Can you show me where they responded specifically to that motion - as opposed to simply denying the request to re-consider the case?
The only reason the case could be re-filed was because the court never gave a legal response to the motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves. When was that motion specifically answered?
>Why does James777 get a personalized “Site Pest JPG” while I just get a generic one?
>
>My feelings are hurt. I guess I’ll have to try harder.
LOL — Thanks for the laugh; I needed some humor.
How much more can we withstand before this stops? How do we stop it?
It’s probably an appropriate moment in time that “Atlas Shrugs” is made into a feature film. Perhaps “Going Galt” is what it is going to take.
The question in this case is whether Obama can “act as President”, or whether the 20th Amendment requires Joe Biden to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
The issue is to see who can Constitutionally carry out the duties of the President right now. That totally depends on whether Obama had “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009. This isn’t about removing Obama, but whether he can Constitutionally be doing any of the things he’s been doing.
I don't think there is any particularized response, to any of those eligibility petitions and motions.
-- The only reason the case could be re-filed was because the court never gave a legal response to the motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves. --
That's not so, and is generally the point I was making before. A loser can petition either with, or without having received a substantive response.
The other general point I was making was that SCOTUS doesn't have any obligation to give a reason for its rejections of taking up a case.
Well, if you see that as the question, the answer is simple: Yes!
Obama is the president.
Aside from impeachment, there isn't any constitutional way to remove a healthy and living president from office, for any reason. Period.
Let Boehner know how you feel. The House is the only government body that can help with this problem. The Court doesn't know that trick - it cannot remove healthy, sitting presidents from office, ever.
I think your observation is really more generic. When ANY of the bodies refuses to abide by its duty, or to respect the limits of its power, then the constitution suffers. Any of the three bodies is capable of nullifying the constitutions, and I dare say, all three HAVE; and in some case, via cooperation.
Say, for example, SCOTUS rules that anchor babies are natural born citizens; even if raised an foreign citizens in the home country of their parents.
Or, for another example, Congress fails to even inquire as to whether or not a dual citizen is qualified.
Anyway, my personal point of view is that all the branches are derelict, and we are NOT in fact, under the constitution in a number of legal areas - presidential qualifications being one of many areas that are corrupt beyond repair. "Coin Money and regulate the value thereof" is probably the biggest, but so too are commerce clause, 2nd amendment, and takings.
But that doesn't preclude SCOTUS ruling on the matter. See Marbury v. Madison, where, after much argument, the Court concluded it was powerless to grant the relief requested. Or see cases where the Court delineates the "political question" boundary, and refuses to render an order. It could take up eligibility, if it wanted to, and thought the issue was more important than the cases it does decide to take up.
OK, it looks like since they didn’t respond to the MOTION TO RECUSE but instead relabeled it as just a “request”, SCOTUS conceded that Kagan and Sotomayor would recuse themselves but then they didn’t recuse themselves.
IOW, SCOTUS tried to change the actual legal document/motion so they didn’t have to give an answer. Because they didn’t answer on time they conceded to the motion but then didn’t actually do what they had conceded that they would do (recuse Kagan and Sotomayor).
This is the biggest pile of steaming horseshit I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot.
We have a lawless Supreme Court. Period. Even THEY don’t follow their own word OR the rules of the judiciary.
Article III says that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold thier Offices during good Behaviour...”
Breaking their word and ignoring the rules of the court is not “good behavior”. These so-called “justices” need to go.
Ruling on what?
If Obama is the president, which to most people is obvious, then he is the Commander in Chief and can act as such. That's not what I say, that's what the Constitution says.
If Obama is not the president, then no one has anything to complain about. Soldiers still have to do what they're told by their commanding officers.
You just can't ignore the Constitution. Obama is the president, even if he shouldn't be the president. As the president, there is only one way to remove him under the constitution - impeachment. Until he is no longer president, he is the Commander in Chief.
You want the Chief Justice, who administered the oath of office, to inquire as to whether Obama should be president? Maybe he should first inquire about whether Bush was a proper president because, if not, then the Chief Justice isn't a legitimate Chief Justice. And, how about the qualifications of every Senator who voted to confirm the Chief Justice?
There is a remedy here. Call and write Boehner!
A freeper has purchased (today) a copy of the 1787 edition of the Law of Nations.
Do you still claim you read..in chapter 19 section 212 the words a natural born citizen is born to citizen parents.
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.