Replies

I believe the judges that could not lawfully deny standing but threw the cases out anyway were either threatened, or else just plain wrong.

I believe the judges that threw out cases because it was “unjusticiable” because it was too early if Obama wasn’t inaugurated and too late if Obama was inaugurated are either morons or believe that the Constitution has elements which can never be enforced (which opposes one of the foundational principles of Constitutional interpretation).

I believe the judges that claimed that Congress alone can judge the eligibility of candidates on state ballots (or enforce state fraud laws, as the judge in WA would have to claim) contradict the Constitution, and the Congressional Research Service attorneys agree with me.

I believe that anyone who says that Presidential eligibility cannot be ruled on by the judiciary because it is a “political issue” is ignoring the 20th Amendment - where it is clear that somebody besides the voters or Congress would have to rule that the “President elect” had failed to qualify. I believe they shoot themselves in the foot by also claiming that the courts would have decided these issues if the right person had filed a lawsuit.

I believe that any judge who ruled Obama eligible without being given any LEGAL evidence of it belongs in Iran where sharia allows “judge’s knowledge” to replace evidence. There is a reason that ex parte communications (such as website postings, Twitter, a biography, etc) are not allowable in court. There is no cross-examination for those things and they can easily be forged, as Obama’s short-form and long-form both were).

I believe that those who say that the judiciary cannot overturn the results of an election ignore the 20th Amendment and every judicial challenge to the Constitionality of laws that have been passed.

The stuff I’m saying is no-brainer type stuff. If it was any issue but this one, there would be no dissent. Which is what makes so many of us feel like the America of today is in a parallel universe from everything America has been in the past. If we were in Iran, Malihi’s decision would be ho-hum; it belongs there. It doesn’t belong here. To have so many people who supposedly believe in the Federal Rules of Evidence argue in favor of Iran-style “evidence” being fine in that GA case is alarming. Either they have been bought or blinded on this particular issue, or we’ve got a heckuva lot of hypocrites running our “justice system”.

What “conservative lawyers” are you talking about? Mark Levin? He is also a media member and as such HAS been threatened. And I’ve only heard that he opposes the 2-citizen-parent argument, not that he says anything about standing, justiciability, etc. Who else are you talking about?

“What “conservative lawyers” are you talking about? Mark Levin? He is also a media member and as such HAS been threatened. And I’ve only heard that he opposes the 2-citizen-parent argument, not that he says anything about standing, justiciability, etc. Who else are you talking about?”
__

Well, remember, I was quoting LL — it was his question. He says he’s a conservative lawyer himself, so perhaps he can weigh in on the sources of the legal opinions he’s been hearing.

But I’m sure you’re aware of the identities of the attorneys who have taken up the birther cases, and I think it’s fair to say that there are no recognized constitutional authorities among them.

As far as you know, have any attorneys at all championed your theory concerning the 20th Amendment?

or believe that the Constitution has elements which can never be enforced (which opposes one of the foundational principles of Constitutional interpretation).

The Constitution has many elements which can't (or won't, the result is the same) be enforced by courts; their enforcement is left to elected branches. The Supreme Court discussed this in cases like Flast v. Cohen and United States v. Richardson (1974). I remember no more divisive issue in this country in my lifetime than the Vietnam War, but no court would ever consider any of the legal challenges to the war. Remember what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist about the judiciary being the "least dangerous branch."