Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BuckeyeTexan; STARWISE; Frantzie; dennisw; penelopesire; BulletBobCo; seekthetruth; Kevmo; ...

In speaking with various folks today, including Joyce, it was rather curious that the SCOTUS allowed to include the amicus with less than 10 days consideration, and that the other side did NOT object. At least five Justices “approved” to give it the “GRANTED” stamp — and that's significant.

As I and others have noted, the Anderson amicus brief was well written and caused the Justices some pause. The repercussions are serious if they wrongly deny cases as they have, and Obama is later found out to be illegitimate.

Don't think that simply because they don't accept Berg's petition they won't accept subsequent petitions or emergency stays by him or others. The Justices may not mark everything in their considerations when they consider what comes their way...

In Walker v. United States, an over-length (IMO, bloated and poorly written) brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle, Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) established that under the court’s political question doctrine, Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution.

Following the court decision, an amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases, McConnell v Federal Election Commission (02-1674 et al.). The purpose of the brief was twofold: (1) To serve as a practice exercise for a new Walker case intended to go to the Supreme Court and (2) to find out whether or not the assertions made in Walker v. United States were in fact true……The fact the amicus was never presented to the Court did not matter. Because the attorneys had reacted so violently, it was obvious by this reaction that what had been stated, that Congress possessed a veto and the effect of that veto was far-reaching, so much so, as to establish the possibility of a dictatorship in the government, that no attorney could accept it.

One document can sometimes have a very powerful, unforeseen effect...


708 posted on 01/15/2009 3:11:08 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies ]


To: BP2

Very interesting! And thank you for the ping.


710 posted on 01/15/2009 3:16:24 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

To: BP2; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...

Thank you, BP2.

Ping. There’s no rest for the weary. Who would have thought there’d be anything to ping today.


711 posted on 01/15/2009 3:30:24 PM PST by LucyT ("Sleep is for people who can't handle caffeine." ...Slings and Arrows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

To: BP2; hoosiermama

I posted a thread about this very subject last night - the Walker cases.

Congress can veto Constitutional clauses (What?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2164746/posts

I sent a ping to hoosiermama and asked her to ask her dad about it. I’m curious what he has to say.


714 posted on 01/15/2009 3:43:08 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

To: BP2
Bush has declared a "state of emergency" in DC.

Inauguration declared 'emergency' ("A State of Emergency")

716 posted on 01/15/2009 3:45:52 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

To: BP2

Thanks for sharing your explanation regarding SCOTUS, Anderson, & Walker.

Is it possible to explain Part (2) of the Walker case (final paragraph of #699) a bit more. In particular, what was the violent reaction of the attorneys involved?

I guess I was traveling when this happened, and therefore I missed it.


723 posted on 01/15/2009 4:20:35 PM PST by Gemsbok (If wishes were horses, than beggars would ride)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

To: BP2

Very interesting in deed. I’m still trying to hold out hope for our Constitutional Republic. It’s not as if the laws and “solutions” that Obama is proposing have happened - YET. We’re going to have to be on the lookout no matter what happens with Obama’s Presidency, because the Democrat-controlled Congress is possibly even WORSE due to the laws they are already proposing...

These are scary times, and I hope SCOTUS is aware of the magnitude of these questions before them. I’ll be praying, regardless...


733 posted on 01/15/2009 5:18:38 PM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

To: BP2

Thanks for the ping to your great post. I am still hopeful, although anticipate much of this battle to go forward after Obama is sworn in as POTUS. I have been wondering why our republican leaders have been so mute of late and some in fact seem to kiss the marxist ground Obama walks on and then something hit me. At this point, one has to wonder if they know something that we don’t, because if in fact Obama is going to be thrown out of office for being ineligible and perpetrating a fraud on the American people, our country will heal much faster if there is not alot of rancor and blood in the water already.

I know...it’s a ‘hope’ long shot....and chances are greater that our leaders are acting like they have for the last 4 years...like country club RINOS....lol!


737 posted on 01/15/2009 5:31:49 PM PST by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson