|
Yes, countless times people have been certified in jobs who actually lied about their qualifications. A Progressive Liberal lie about his qualifications?!
Do you mean like former-University of Colorado's
|
Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
United States District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle has dismissed the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit challenging President Barack H. Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss."
Judge Simandle's full opinion is at the link.
My apology. I presumed you were being combative, which seems to be the rule and not the exception on these threads.
To me, it's clear from everything I've read as either a student, or a practicing attorney, that the 20th is specifically dealing with the possible circumstance of a pre-inaugural death of a President-Elect, a contested election, or a circumstance where the Electoral College has failed to render a contest winner - after all, a tie is theoretically possible in the EC.
People seemingly wish to interpret this "failed to qualify" phrase as an invitation for an ex post facto judicial review over the results of an Electoral College election. When in fact, the Constitution specifically and singularly gives oversight of the Electoral College to the Legislative branch, not the Judiciary. In much the same way that the Judiciary is foreclosed from oversight in President's war-fighting authority, or a Presidential impeachment. Of course, the judiciary is represented by the presence of the Chief Justice as the officiator of the Senate trial with respect to an impeachment.
And, in the midst of all this discussion about the 20th Amendment, let's not forget about the Political Question Doctrine. Starting with Luther v. Bordon, and affirmed or expanded in a number of subsequent rulings, it is clear - at least to me - that the Court would recuse itself from any challenges to the Congressional oversight of the Electoral College and it's operation and it's certifications. And ultimately, those who wish to fight this battle in the Judiciary, and not in the Legislative branch are asking the Judiciary to do just that - to review and subsequently overturn the decision of the Electoral Collage and the Congressional certification of that EC election. I don't see this Court, or any court doing such a thing, ever.
|
Yes, countless times people have been certified in jobs who actually lied about their qualifications. A Progressive Liberal lie about his qualifications?!
Do you mean like former-University of Colorado's
|
Vattel didn't address American citizenship.
"Under the 1790(?) definition adopted by Congress, which is of questionable value since Congress cannot retroactively define terms in the constitution, by adopting laws, the definition is born of two U.S. Citizens or if the Father is a U.S. citizen."
The 1790 law was about children born overseas.
I repeat judges should not base a decision on standing on their own political assessements. When the whigs were domiinant there were those who said the new Republican Party could never succeed.
Ward Churchill such a BS artist. I’ll bet any amount of money that he is also an After-Birther. ;^)
Not really. The Whigs imploded over the 1852 election. Their leaders either left politics or defected to other parties. The Republicans formed two years later and the immediately attracted most of the former Whigs. The Whigs were last heard of in 1856, when they endorsed another party's candidate for president. The two barely overlapped, and there was never a time when a strong Whig party existed at the same time as the Republican party.
If I came across as being combative, I apologize. I am an engineer by trade, and work in the enforcement of regulations in the aerospace industry (thus my legalistic, if un-lawyerly, method of reading things). I ask most often because I don’t know, even though I may not agree with the answer I get.
In this case, I don’t think I agree with you, as I see a clear separation between selection and qualification in the amendment. Having said that, I fully understand that my opinion is simply that - and is neither legally binding on anyone, nor likely to be universal. I can say, however, that a legal reading that concludes the opposite would seem to me to be rooted in a radically different understanding of English than I have come to enjoy.
Just my $.02.
People who haven't trained as attorneys sometimes struggle with the difference between how a law (to include the Constitution) is written, and how it has been or will be interpreted or practically applied. They read something in the Constitution or the US Code and they look to apply that specific language to a contemporary set of circumstances. But, what they either fail to do or appreciate, is the case law that has since been decided that may limit, expand or modify the statutory or constitutional law
Such is the case when judges talk about standing, justiciability, political questions, or a whole host of other principles of American jurisprudence (especially with respect to this particular issue) that also guide a court when deciding cases. It's not just what the law says, it's also, how has it(the law) been applied that's relevant to how a case will be heard, dismissed or decided.
If ever any individual citizen was to be determined to have legal standing in challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility, it would most likely need to be John Sidney McCain, the individual who was most directly harmed by Obama’s popular vote and electoral college vote victories.
Actually there is a legal catch-22 in the legal standing issues. It is most often strict constructionist-traditionalist-conservative judges who are very picky about legal standing to sue because it is usually liberals filing frivolous lawsuits over every single issue under the sun hoping that activist judges will overstep their authority.
Conservative judges and the conservative US Supreme Court justices have refused to wade in to the Obama eligibility controversy because of separation of powers issues. It is the legislative branch’s responsibility and the states’ responsibility to determine eligibility not the courts’.
Nor did Vattel say he was talking about England in that passage. See, the rules were not universal. The practice in many European coutries was as Vattel described. But not in England, and hence not in America. Nice try though.
Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.
England, hence not in America? Where do get these ideas? Have the thrills up your leg finally reached your grey matter?
Yep, that's it!
I imagine that they're basing their decision on reality rather than politics. Damages have to be real, not imaginary or hypothetical. Claims of damages to Keyes' campaign are certainly imaginative, if not out-and-out delusional.
When the whigs were domiinant there were those who said the new Republican Party could never succeed.
And did they sue?
Well, you certainly redirect focus like a practiced attorney, I'll give you that much. Because, as you no doubt are aware, no one has ever asserted that the judiciary had, has, or should have the power to review an electoral college election, or claim oversight of such.
Instead, the issue has always been to find a judicial remedy for compelling the Congress to act according to the Constitution, should they fail to do so, and as they clearly have in the case of their lack of properly qualifying the president-elect before confirming his electoral election - you know, the one you declare to be legitimate because you saw it on TV.
So, as a practiced attorney well-versed in both Constitutional and statutory law, you are also aware that such a remedy has existed as the prerogative writ of mandamus in common law for centuries, and that this writ directly addresses such the issue actually being addressed by this thread.
Further, however, as a practiced attorney, you also know that the federal courts hearing these cases are sitting under administrative jurisdiction, rather in their common law capacity, and so are operating under the presumption of 14th amendment plaintiff status, which you know to be that of privileges rather than rights.
Which is why you know that a writ of mandamus, while conceptually appropriate for this situation, is a common law writ, and so cannot be accessed by an administrative plaintiff (for lack of common law "standing"). And so, since the actual judicial mechanism for this situation is presumptively barred at the moment of filing these suits, you are safe to ignore it's existence, and the existence of the jurisdiction issue itself, while you indulge in your lawyerly pontificating - without letting anyone know that these are the real legal issues behind the court's constant rejection of standing.
How enjoyable for you.
I don’t agree, but we can both keep hoping, me that the law will be applied, and you that massive fraud will be allowed to succeed.
"no one has ever asserted that the judiciary had, has, or should have the power to review an electoral college election, or claim oversight of such."
As a practical matter, especially in the context of the comment that I made to another poster, that's exactly what the practical implication was.
While all these cases (to my knowledge) have failed to prevail on the issue of standing, even if they did, the court would still have to decide it's ability to provide something else - a remedy. And this was the context or impetus for the comments that I made, and that you responded to.
If, in these particular cases - they had prevailed on standing, the court would still have to address it's own ability to provide a remedy. What remedy can the court provide here? None, zip, nada, nothing.
"without letting anyone know that these are the real legal issues behind the court's constant rejection of standing."
I have discussed standing, subject matter jurisdiction and justiciability ad nauseum on these threads. You must have missed it. And, you accuse me of pontificating when you go an a three paragraph bender about prerogative writs and the such. Nice.
Lastly, since you brought it up, what statutory obligation exactly would you have a Writ of Mandamus compel the legislative branch to execute? Do you know of any other instance in the 230+ years that either Congress or the Electoral College demanded to see the birth certificate - in what ever form - of any President-Elect. Where in the US Code does it demand that they do this?
The candidate must be Eligible before the Electors can certify the candidate.
A 34 year old can run for President, but cannot assume the position until reaching age 35. The constitution provides direction in case the candidate is not eligible, or needs to be made eligible.
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History
3. ..... If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
The Electors choose, they do not qualify. A President must be eligible for office in order to qualify. Matters not if he won the election,was selected by Electors, swore an oath and is now throwing parties at the Whitehouse.
0bama needs to show all of his vitals records, before assuming the powers granted by the Constitution
Glad you folks agree with me.
If a President fails to qualify for office - is not eligible, then the Electors cannot consider said ineligible candidate for office.
Candidate is not choosen by Electors, not sworn in, not throwing parties at Whitehouse, etc
You understand that, with respect to the office of the President, the 20 Amendment Section 3, is about a contested election, or a dead President-Elect, Vice President-Elect or both, or some problem with Electoral College, right?
We didn't have ANY of those things in 2008/2009. The people who needed to certify election results, certified them. And, the people who needed to certify the Electoral College results certified them as well.
Can you point to any other time since the adoption of the 20th Amendment where either Congress or Electoral College demanded that a President-Elect show all of his vitals records, before assuming the powers granted by the Constitution? Just once? Ever? How about Title 3 USC, are those words found anywhere there?
Again, you're making it up as you go along.
Oopps, I see you are reading into statements what you wish to believe.
1) The 0bama COLB points to a document “on File” at the State of Hawaii. If the document was accepted or registered, I would expected said COLB to disclose that fact. I guess the State of Hawaii cannot attest to 0bama document as “registered”. This is the same as the IRS, you can “file” your tax return, but the critical step is review and acceptance by the IRS.
2)..have seen the Vital records (plural). How many Birth Certificates does 0bama need to prove Citizenship??? I only need one BC.
3)These vital records are on file, not registered or accepted
4)What is a natural born American Citizen. Why not state 0bama is a natural born Hawaiian citizen?? Canada is part of America, Brazil is part of America, the United States are part of America. “America”, both north, south and central, are comprised of at least three distinct Countries! You need to be a citizen of a State to to be a citizen of the United State. The phrase “natural born American Citizen” is a meaningless statement.
5) Lot’s of anchor babies are born in the United States, the might become citizens, but certainly are not Citizens (capital C for specific reason)
0bama needs to release his long form Birth Certificate, and all of those other vital records
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.
