Posted on 10/31/2008 12:03:09 PM PDT by djf
For those who don't know, a "Quo Warranto" is an ancient common law writ which commands the court to determine "by what authority" a person or corporation acts. If a person were to get as much as a speeding ticket, he could file this type of writ against the police officer. The judge ain't gonna like it, and will probably chew you a new one, but it has to get answered.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/quo-warranto.htm
And being a "common law" writ, heres the good and juicy: EVERYONE HAS STANDING!
Here are a couple paragraphs from the writ:
Quo Warranto: 2. Pleadings in quo warranto are anomalous. In ordinary legal proceedings, the plaintiff, whether he be the state or a person, is bound to show a case against the defendant. But in an information of quo warranto, as well as in the writ for which it substituted, the order is reversed. The state is not bound to show anything, but the defendant is bound to show that he has a right to the franchise or office in question; and if he fail to show authority, judgment must be given against him. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier; 1868 - 1870
QUO WARRANTO, is hereby directed against defendant the BARACK OBAMA, et als,, acting under color of office within the State of Illinois, as SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as within the State of California, you are hereby commanded to show your lawful authority to instantly produce UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, your proper and lawful bona fides as required by the concise rule of law. WHEREAS, you are hereby directed to show your proper delegation legal authority thereby, under QUO WARRANTO terms and conditions cited herein in the following particulars:
To read the whole thing, see this link:
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/780/2/
You are absolutely right.
Yes, way better. Strange days, indeed.
The Constitution is plain about who can be a president. The Constitution isn't a windmill.
However....I bet Obama and his armies of treasonous lawyers will throw every legal challenge against those who wish to verify Obama’s Constitutional qualifications. Obama is the windmill here.
Impossible with current MSM.
Most common law writs, such as quo warranto, have been abolished or superseaded by statute or rule. In federal courts, the cause can be sought by regular civil action.
“Maybe Obama thinks it’s good strategy to keep his opponents expending their hopes and resources tilting at windmills.”
When you are secretive about EVERYTHING, then you opponent doesn’t know if he has hit a sore spot or not.
All this stuff that Obama hides, the truth is that most of it doesn’t have anything in it. Now if he only clammed up on the stuff that was a problem, then we would know THAT was the item that had the problem in it.
By seeming to cover up everything, he leaves us wondering if this or that (or that other thing) is actually the one to be spending our time on.
What makes you think this isn’t the sinkEmperor’s crime syndicate in action?... Disqualifying the little Marxist squirrel at this late hour clears the way for her lowness to ascend the throne.
This is a bad thing?
And, BTW, given all the illegalities in The Marxist's campaign, the name of the game has become, ''Just win, baby!''
Well, in all fairness, I’d be willing to give the guy the benefit of a doubt. But it’s like the old saying goes “Hope for the best, but assume the worst”
His actions, his lawyers, his hemmimg and hawing can only lead any reasonable person to conclude one thing.
He’s hiding something very damaging.
Why so? Please elabourate.
Many of us have wondered aloud what this creature was receiving in return for its apostasy. A judgeship? Sounds reasonable. I hope that the apostate creature Kmiec enjoys its worldly status for its remaining days on earth. It will answer to the Supreme Judge at the end of them, and it would not be unreasonable to speculate that things will not go well for the apostate with that Jurist.
Sorry - posted to the wrong open thread.
Hey!!
I just realized my ten year Freeper anniversary was last week!
So now I’m decadent!
Yay!!
No, a win on this issue would remove Obama from the senate and change his classification to illegal alien and subject to deportation.
That’d be a goodie!
In addition to having to answer a questionnaire that ran 10 or 12 pages, legal length, in pretty small print, I had to produce certified copies of my birth certificate; certified copies of all college and post-grad academic records sent directly to Uncle Sam from the relevant institutions; certificates of good standing and currency of professional licenses, sent directly to Uncle Sam from the relevant states of issuance; a bunch of other stuff; and a list of people who were not relatives, friends and about eight or ten other things, who could be interviewed to determine whether or not I could be trusted to "know stuff".
And then, "they" went off and interviewed all those people. Those people were, in turn, asked for names of other people, etc, and then those people were apparently interviewed. Or so I've been told.
And this was as a miserable, scum-sucking GI. Not even close to being POTUS. Yeah, I ultimately learned "stuff", but it wasn't nearly as exciting as one might imagine.
It is difficult for me to state just how offensive it is to me that Obama doesn't have to do any of this, even when there is some reason to suspect that his bona fides may not be in order.
Welcome to the ten-year club!
I was merely stating fact. Not offering and opinion.
I agree with you that Limbaugh could have been more aggressive about this issue, but I must confess, that I was disclaiming my comments about this a few months ago by indicating which comments were under the influence of the tin-foil hat.
What is most striking is Obama’s refusal to address the issue on the merits. Just show the damned original birth certificate
In dealing with the democRATs I have taken the tack of looking at the end game. In this case the end game is a constitutionally ineligable candidate declared teh winner of the contest. Creating the necessary requirement for a call for a constitutional convention.
As with the convention of 1787 which was called to amend the articles of confederation, they emerged with a completely new document. Same here, with new rights to health care, and housing, sodomy and abortion, while gun rights and free speech would be severely restricted or eliminated. They could even say that the Koran is the highest authority and institute Sharia law if they could get the majority of state legislatures controlled by democRATS to vote to ratify such a new document.
The key to all of this is the end game. Look out to the horizon, not at you feet. Look to see where they want to go in the far future rather than in just a few months.
ping
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.