Posted on 12/08/2008 11:28:55 AM PST by LongIslandConservative
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Can any one here build another case? The Constitution should be held
Can any one here build another case? The Constitution should be held
Some people are trolls who joined during the Clinton impeachment and have managed to keep their heads down just enough to survive.
***Now those would be deeply embedded trolls. Who are they?
Sorry, I’ll have to hit the abuse button on that one. Do really think advocating that solution reflects well on FR?
FREEPERS: Listen on Plains Radio Network now at:
http://www.plainsradio.com/
Bookmark Leo Donofrio’s web site below and read all his information. Please check back for updates often. Leo is working with Cort on his case in Conference for Friday.Justice Scalia referred Cort’s case for Friday 12/12 Conference which is EARLIER than it would have normally gone to Conference. Might be a good sign.:)
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
This is not over yet. Visit Freeper Joe Thunder’s web site and read about the Press Conference that he has on tape and will post tomorrow. The room was FULL of MSM but you won’t see it on TV!
http://freedommarch.org/Home_Page.html
You said — “Geez. Never thought I’d see that posted here. At DU, but not here.”
Well..., take it in the context that I meant it. It was not meant as disrespect to the nature of what the Constitution represents and the words. It’s simply a recognition that it’s not a “magical piece of paper with words” that “does something” on its own.
It’s absolutely no good without the *kind* of people that originally wrote it — and that means those who believe that it was God who has to do with establishing this nation and also maintaining this nation.
Now..., at the present day, I would say that the way the majority of the voting electorate is acting (with what their “vote” represents) — that they’ve abandoned God and all that He represents for our country. And if that’s the case (which I believe it is, by the actions of the voting public) — then this means that the Constitution is *invalid* with that very same voting public (which is why this “natural-born” issue gets no traction). Absent the recognition of the part that God plays in our society in the foundation of the country and in maintaining this country — the Constitution means nothing.
It only means something *in the context* of how it was originally put together. I don’t believe that context exists like it did in the beginning...
—
There may be a few who still believe as the original founders believed (in that they depended upon the Creator God to help them found the country and to maintain the country) — but those few remaining do not represent the majority of the voting public and therefore are losing out. And, as a result, the Constitution is losing out, too...
I think I tend to agree, the only feasible way that we lose the Kenyan, if that he is, is for the election to be thrown into the House. Although elections have been thrown into the House before. In the Election of 1800, where two candidates from the same party each got the same number votes, the House finally picked Jefferson over Burr, Burr then became VP, as was intended all along by their party. That led to the 12th amendment proceedure whereby votes are cast separately for President and VP. In the election of 1824 the House choose between Adams (II), Jackson and Crawford. Henry Clay came in 4th and what not considered, but he made a "deal" with Adams, and even though Jackson originally got the most electoral votes (and popular votes which were counted the first time in that election), Adams was selected. He only served one term though, and Jackson beat him handily in 1828.
The election of 1876, while it did not go to the House, did involve quite a mess, and was only finally settled 3 days before the Inauguration was to take place. That was decided by an ad hoc Electoral Commission created by Congress and consisting of 5 Supreme Court justices, 5 senators, and 5 House members. But they could do that because the disputes involved election returns and certification of electors in the states, not any Constitutional qualification of the candidates.
So, bottom line, the Fat Lady hasn't sung yet.
There is STILL a way around this, folks. Let’s contact the McCain electors and tell them that they MUST vote for Hillary. She is undoubtedly a natural-born citizen, and Republicans can show that they are able to put politics aside and vote for Hillary Clinton on principle.But we only have 7 days left. Please consider this option.
You said — “They, the SOSs, plan on ambushing the Electoral College.”
You (and others) are living in an “alternate universe” if you think that’s going to happen with the Electoral College. That ain’t going nowhere...
LOL..
Then once it's out of the bag, the chips would fall where they may.
Long shot, but barely possible.
‘Why was it sent to the anthrax lab to begin with?’
The clerk’s office never gave an answer why.
You’re not following it because I did a really bad job of stating my point.
Let me try that again.
Since this is a sensitive matter, rather than simply have the second Justice deny review on his own steam-—thus, leaving him open to the charge that he single-handedly blocked action-—the second Justice might refer the case to the full Court for discussion so the denial is seen as a collective one.
bttt
There are restrictions placed on the Electors as to whom they may choose from, if candidate(s) are disqualified. Something about going to the others who have received votes.
BTW, I could not in good conscience recommend Hillary Clinton vs. most anyone.
O My ! Where did you get this information/
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!11
Some of them. I've read the relevant portions of "The Law Of Nations" and "Blackstone's Commentaries ". Still need to read Tucker, but one must always keep in mind that Tucker was writing *after* the Constitution had passed. Still he's generally considered authoritative on it's meanings.
Tucker gives a good explanation of the reason for requiring a President to be a natural born citizen, that is to avoid foreign influences. But, as Blackstone explains the term "natural born", that can be as well accomplished by someone with two US Citizen parents who happens to be born outside the country, particularly when one or both of them are in it's service at the time. (To include ambassadors, embassy staff, and military). Blackstone even extends that to a person born outside the realm (he's speaking of England of course) whose father is a subject/citizen of the realm.
But as you say, we will see, probably sooner rather than later. I hope the issue doesn't cast it's pall over the Christmas season, but I expect it will.
A PI offering a “Friend of the Court” brief???????.... Interesting!
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.