What's your point?
That is precisely why Butter's "script" (which I've been editing) calls for a member of Congress (who has "standing" if anyone does) to bring suit in a judicial court.
That is in accordance with both HI and Federal law.
So I ask again: "What's your point?" Or are you just being your usual disruptive self...?
“What’s your point?”
-TXnMA
LucyT pinged me with msg 105 of this thread. I began reading commentary from several posters on the thread and decided to add my 2 cents.
“That is precisely why Butter’s “script” (which I’ve been editing) calls for a member of Congress (who has “standing” if anyone does) to bring suit in a judicial court.”
- TXnMA
A member of Congress does not have standing to bring suit against a usurper in the Office of the President because Congress does have Constitutional authority to challenge, examine or question the citizenship status of a U.S. Citizen.
With respect of citizenship, Congress is only authorized by the Constitution to write legislation as it pertains to immigration and naturalization. Congress could conduct hearings, subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents; but it could only refer the information gathered and put in a report to the DOJ or a Special Prosecutor.
Only the DOJ or a Special Prosecutor could bring suit after Congress conducted hearings. A member of Congress does not have standing. Do you understand that your wrong and misleading people who have devoted a lot of time and energy into exposing an usurper? Stop challenging people who know what their talking about and start taking notes. There is no need to reply with gibberish on matters you know very little about.