Posted on 11/29/2010 7:37:16 AM PST by Elderberry
(ORDER LIST: 562 U.S.) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2010
CERTIORARI DENIED
10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
The U.S. District Court in D.C. has dismissed at least two quo warranto suits challenging Obama's eligibility.
Did the Muslim suing to have Oklahoma not implement their anti-sharia law present psychiatrists’ bills?
Did the people who sued to keep AZ from enforcing their immigration enforcement law present psychiatrists’ bills?
According to the standards for “standing” that have been applied in the eligibility suits, none of these people even have “standing”. Now you want them to prove that they suffered real, certified harm before they can even get accepted as a legitimate “case”?
Did Roe of Roe v Wade present documentation that the law against abortion caused her real harm? By the time the case was decided she wasn’t even pregnant any more and wasn’t raising the child either. Did she have a psychologist’s assessment that she was harmed in some way?
Fremont, NE has been stopped from enforcing the ordinance the voters passed back in 2008 requiring landlords to verify legal immigration status before renting to someone. I think the ACLU has filed that lawsuit. Why would ACLU have “standing”, and how could they even represent ANYBODY with “standing” since nobody could show any real damages since the ordinance has never been able to go into effect?
All this stuff about “standing” is really just a signed blank check for a judge to blow off anything they don’t want to address. They change the requirements for “standing” at will, based on their own political whims. They are the government; they can shaft whoever they want to shaft and there’s not a dang thing any of us peons can do within the legal system to stop them.
THAT is the lesson of this whole Obama coup, and its “fundamental transformation of America”. It’s an experiment to see what happens when America becomes just like any other third-world tyranny.
Here's the problem we face when discussing the meaning of natural born citizen(NBC) in this particular context. Many people, apparently, wish to evaluate a US citizen's eligibility to be viewed as an NBC, by some application of foreign statutory law. Why would we do that, ever?
To take the argument to the absurd extreme, what would keep one of our enemies, like Korea or Iran or even Russia, from extending - by statute - citizenship to anyone with Iranian/North Korean/Russian blood, irrespective of how many generations that person could actually be removed from those countries. Using the same logic that many apparently wish to apply to Kenya or British or Indonesian law, anyone who was of even negligible of Iranian or North Korean ancestry, would be foreclosed as an NBC precisely because they would now - by statute - be North Korean or Iranian ancestry. Now, does that make logical sense?
All this stuff about “standing” is really just a signed blank check for a judge to blow off anything they don’t want to address. They change the requirements for “standing” at will, based on their own political whims. They are the government; they can shaft whoever they want to shaft and there’s not a dang thing any of us peons can do within the legal system to stop them.
102 posted on Monday, November 29, 2010 5:35:10 PM by butterdezillion
I agree to an extent but I am not quite so pessimistic about America’s future.
Be sure to read Winter’s Essay on Standing, it coincides with your premise.
http://standupamericaus.com/our-privilege-our-right-and-our-duty-civilian-grand-jury:33320
The U.S. District Court in D.C. has dismissed at least two quo warranto suits challenging Obama’s eligibility.
The King had no need to declare young Barack Jr. a citizen of the British Empire. He was one at birth.
Only because that was the statutory (or perhaps constitutional) law of the Kingdom at the time of his birth.
The manner in which citizenship is bequeathed (how it's codified) is probably immaterial. The fact is that is codified somehow, either through the country's constitution, common law, statute, or case law.
The logical rub here is that one cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of anywhere by statute. BHO, Jr. Becme a “dual citizen beause of his parentage. BHO, Sr. was a Natural Born Citizen of the British Empire, passing onto his son the rights and privileges thereby.
The King had no need to declare young Barack Jr. a citizen of the British Empire. He was one at birth.
From William Rawle’s book “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1825) which was quoted in the Congressional debate of the 14th Amendment as well as as by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in the case of the Town of New Hartford v. The Town of Canaan (1886): “The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealths which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle was appointed by George Washington to be the first US Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania.
The media heads were threatened with annihilation of their companies if they reported on the eligibility issue. The threat was passed on to the on-air personalities as threats against their careers, lives, and families’ lives if they allowed anybody on their shows to discuss Obama’s eligibility problem. Doug Hagmann says he has the handwritten notes from the secretary who sat in on the meeting where the threat from Obama’s lawyer was explained to the on-air personalities, as well as statements from one of the talk show hosts and others.
The timeline I’ve put together suggests those threats were made sometime between Oct 15-26, 2008. Right around the same time that I believe Soros realized he was going to have to threaten Judge Surrick in the Berg case, and that the electronic run on the bank was a perfect illustration of what he could do again if anybody balked at his demands.
The run on the bank itself was, I believe, Soros’ deliberately-manufactured crisis in response to McCain catching up in the polls when Palin was chosen as VP. (From the day of the run on the bank, the polls reversed so that Obama rose and McCain fell.) But as the eligibility problems got increasingly more urgent in mid-October the forced financial crisis became ammunition to get even America-loving patriots to do whatever he demanded - including getting McCain to muzzle Palin over the eligibility issue, SCOTUS justices to agree to “evade” the issue, and Dick Cheney to certify the electoral vote. Everybody but McCain seems to have found a way to protest what they were forced to do under duress though. Red flags all over the place, including Cheney never actually fulfilling the legal requirement to have Congress certify Obama as the electoral winner (since he never asked for objections as required by law).
IOW, what we have been told by the secretary and the talk show host is that Soros threatened even conservatives to keep quiet, on pain of legal and regulatory retaliation after Obama was elected. But if anybody had reported the eligibility problems, that could have kept Obama from being elected and thwarted the threat if that was really the threat that Soros used.
For that reason, I don’t think that was the threat used on the very top media heads, although it was what the media heads told the on-air personalities. I believe Soros actually told the media heads the same thing he told the SCOTUS justices, McCain, Cheney, and Bush: that he would make another run on the bank that would collapse the entire world economy if anybody balked at his coup to put Obama on the throne and begin the process of further destabilizing the US economy through running up the deficit.
That’s how Soros was able to stop the very people who could have stopped Obama dead in his tracks. He held the US economy hostage to get past the patriotic, freedom-loving leaders who we then watched cave on this issue, one by one. Dividing conservatives over this was an added bonus, and getting the conservative media to do the Alinsky tactics for him probably made Soros laugh at all of us.
If there were any freedom-loving patriots in the Hawaii government (which is highly questionable, IMHO) he might have threatened them as well, to get them to lie about his documentation, hide HDOH Administrative Rules, and either destroy permanent records or lie by saying they don’t exist.
I should say that there is no way I can prove the Soros threat of collapsing the US economy, but the more I look into evidence including the details of timing, etc, the more I do believe this is what happened.
On my blog at one point I gave more details about why I thought this had happened, and mentioned that exploiting nations’ economic vulnerability for his own gain or agenda is what Soros has spent his entire life doing. I noted that he had been convicted of this in France. It was very interesting to me to read within a couple days that after about 4 years of nothing happening on Soros’ appeal of that conviction, suddenly the European Court decided to take up Soros’ appeal. Apparently Soros had suddenly decided it was worth whatever it would cost to bribe them to take up the issue and clear him of that conviction.
Probably because Beck was beginning to expose Soros and his stooges around the same time. But it’s been really interesting to me also that the heavy-duty virus attacks on my computers always come right after I start talking about whether Soros threatened the judges with collapsing the world economy if they took up the eligibility issue.
If you don’t see me for a while you’ll know what happened. lol
On what grounds?
The old “tilting at windmills” reason for denying a lawsuit. Not standing. Not that there is no damage. Not cited precedent. Not that the case itself is not authorized by law.
No legal reason at all. Just “tilting at windmills”.
Another red flag. How this bullsh!t passes as a legal ruling is beyond me.
And, I might add, Lamberth totally blew off Judge Carter’s statements that Taitz’ case would properly be heard as a Quo Warranto in the DC Circuit. Sounds like he gave no legal justification for contradicting Carter. Sounds like he just blew a great big raspberry in all our faces and expects us to treat it as if it’s settled law then.
The arrogance of these SOB’s is incredible. Either that, or Royce C Lamberth was told what the end result had to be and he didn’t want to even bother trying to come up with some mindless blather to cover up that he was just farting in the general direction of the Constitution, as ordered to do.
Take your pick.
I see, you take the comment out of context, and make an obvious statement. Pretty lame there guy...pretty lame.
A Natural Born Citizen would have no such choice. "
Exactly. It's the point of the requirement for the the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces, not to mention the Chief executive of the country.
We already got Obots saying that " He did it " referring to President Chester Arthur, so since Chester Arthur did it, Obama get's a free pass.
-----------------------------------------------
Right. With the major difference that prior the Arthur being sworn in, the public "at large" wasn't aware of his eligibility problem. There doesn't appear to have been any court challenges either. However, with Barry, as much as those in the state run media would like to try and marginalize it...people were aware of Barry's eligibility issues and there were a number of legal attempts to get the issue resolved prior to 1/20/08.
Not to mention, it appears the information regarding C.A.'s father's citizenship status was not know (or well known) until 2008.
Carter never said that. He said that he had no jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto claim, because quo warranto claims can only be heard in D.C. He never said that Taitz's quo warranto claim was a proper one or that it would survive a motion to dismiss in D.C.
Whose side do you think the military will take?
On what legal ground was it dismissed?
The old “tilting at windmills” reason for denying a lawsuit. Not standing. Not that there is no damage. Not cited precedent. Not that the case itself is not authorized by law.
No legal reason at all. Just “tilting at windmills”.
Another red flag. How this bullsh!t passes as a legal ruling is beyond me.
You are correct. The people who made it possible for obama to be in power are going to make sure he stays in power. This issue is a dead horse. Time to move to plan B.
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.