Posted on 07/13/2009 8:48:39 PM PDT by FARS
Obama eligibility case will be heard on the merits !! Please distribute everywhere.
At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter reportedly said the following: 1. There will be a trial. 2. It will be heard on the merits. 3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues. 4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority. 5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC. 6. Judge stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at antimullah.com ...
Santa Ana- Obama's Alamo?
I’m a little confused and am trying to figure out what really happened vs. various parties’ interpretation of what happened. It would help to have an actual transcript of the proceedings v. blogs interpreting and reinterpreting what Dr. Taitz and others claim. Maybe her site will post that transcript when it’s available.
As I read the WND article, the hearing today was on Dr. Taitz’s default motion and on her motion to reconsider the judge’s previous order stating (or suggesting) that the service on the defendant (Obama) was inadequate.
No answer was filed, which would give grounds for a default if service had been properly made.
At today’s hearing, Obama’s private attorneys did not attend but US Attorneys did, and the judge required them to accept service, so that would appear to overcome any service defect referred to in his order being reconsidered.
I thought earlier there was a question in this case of whether Obama was to be defended in this suit by his personal v. govt attorneys. My memory is that Dr. Taitz claimed this suit was filed before Obama was sworn in, and thus he should not be represented by the government attorneys at government/taxpayer expense. (it would have been impossible to file this suit on Jan 20 before he was inaugurated, but that’s another issue). When Clinton was sued by Paula Jones while he was in the White House he was represented by a private attorney (Bob Bennett).
Now, thru the US Attorneys, Obama has been served in this case. (regardless of who will represent and pay for that representation) He has X days to file an Answer.
The filing of that Answer would knock out the grounds for the default Dr. Taitz seeks.
After the Answer is filed, there will likely be a round or two of briefing; the judge can then review the basic merits of the case, and if he believes there are grounds to proceed, set up a scheduling order that would include discovery.
I guess my question is in the over-optimism of reports here, that the case will proceed on its merits. I don’t think that that has been established, only that there is a judge who is paying attention, who said he’d give it his full consideration, and who will not allow a dismissal on purely technical grounds.
Obama’s first executive order was to hide all his personal papers? I didn’t know that.
I was on the Wa Post site reading the disgusting comments about Sarah’s article and most of them were “Sarah didn’t write this”. Of course they have no way of confirming this. But the thing is, what have we seen that zero has written? He gives mostly teleprompter speeches and they all love him but Sarah writes an article that made a lot of sense and their big accusation is she didn’t write it.
I sure hope we aren’t too far gone to come back from where we are.
NO, Biden would be president.
Tecnically speakeing there woldhave to be legal grounds for and appeal and Judge Carter is meticulous, so hope for the best not the worst.
Not on the long form birth certificate. Place of birth, both political (city, state/country) and physical (ie. hospital or street address), father's birthplace, are on the long form. Mothers "usual address" is as well.
Of course there might not be a Hawaiian long form birth certificate, might be a Canadian one, or even a Kenyan one (long shot though).
You can’t get on the ballot of any state until its SOS declares you eligible..which until now has not been a problem.
In our dreams.
That argument may have had a chance before the election. But since the election, clearly laid out constitutional procedures take precedence. It would provoke a major constitutional crisis for the courts to short-circuit them. In order to unravel the problem now, the constitutional procedure for removal would have to be followed.
Or, the President could suspend the Constitution, thus authorizing (and requiring, based on the oaths military officers take) a military coup.
Sounds llike Judge Carter.
Don’t forget to also search under blogs on Google .. top, at more, dropdown menu.
He’s actually too old for anyone to nominate to SCOTUS, but he could be moved up to the Court of Appeals (or not).
Or, the President could suspend the Constitution, thus authorizing (and requiring, based on the oaths military officers take) a military coup.
1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
I just love this verse...
And I just love even more watching it in action at this level.
If he's ruled to not have been eligible, then he's not President, impeachment only applies to President and other federal office holders. He resigned his Senate Seat, so he'd not be one of those.
But otherwise, it's a good question. One possibility, among others, is that if he refused to leave on his own, someone would have to file a lawsuit in federal court, likely the same court that ruled that he was not eligible, to have him ordered to leave, if that was not part of the original ruling. Then if he refused, he's in contempt of court and that's a matter for federal marshals.
More likely US Marshals. They are the ones who take care of people who refuse to obey court orders. But of course the Marshals could request assistance.
You mean, create law...not rewrite law.
Those laws could then be challenged in court as well.
This of course presumes that the country remains asleep after all this rises to the top. It further presumes that there isn't a shake up in Congress, like Pelosi for example who certified Barry as being legit. I think if the libs tride to write such law on the spot would awaken the sleeping giant in "us." The tea parties would be made to look like...well...a child's tea party.
No need to be adversarial. I didn’t recognize the name at first, then quickly realized who it was. More of a temporary mental block than anything else. I’m certainly not “late to the party” (I was on this issue long before 0 was elected, and probably about 70% of my bookmarks are related to the BC issue); but I have been away from it for a while and have not been following FR as closely in the last few months as I usually do. Blame a cross-country move and a new house purchase.
In any case, glad to know that the suspect e-mail turned out to be validated by other sources.
Only indirectly. The Constitution states that the qualifications for voters in federal elections are determined by the state's qualifications for voting in the elections for the most populous house of the state legislature. (which meant the House since the Senate was elected by the state legislators, and the electors for President were appointed by the states by whatever method they felt best, that is still technically the case, but all states now do it by a popular vote), Most states did require one to be a property owner to vote for their state representatives.
Read your Constitution carefully. Being sworn in is just one more requirement for becoming President, accomplishing that does not negate the others, such as getting the majority of the electoral votes, being 35 or older, having lived in the US for 14 or more years, and finally it being noon on January 20th, (or presumably after that date/time, if the other requirements, particularly the swearing of the oath of office have not yet been met. That means technically we are without a President when the swearing in is delayed past noon. This time, laying the other eligibility questions aside, we may have been nearly a day without a President, since the oath was not properly sworn .
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.