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

To: AmericanVictory

I have always thought the lack of standing was a easy dismissal. The courts are saying you have not proven you are harmed.

The people have no standing because Obama has not personally harmed them. To legislate socialists policies and redistribute wealth is not against the law. It is the progressive party principles and the people must bow down to the party who WINS! So millions are out of work while Obama wants trillions to go to the UN. That’s not the courts problem to solve.

Military have standing. They have a right to know their Commander in Chief is legitimate and they swore to uphold the Constitution and protect the U.S from the enemy. But have they been harmed? Courts would say no. You signed up for the military so you go to your assignment. Nothing has changed, we have two wars, you knew you might have to go. Military does not have the responsibility to prove Obama’s NBC status.

We know this is not the point. We know no one wants to go war if they think POTUS may be a terrorist sympathizer or ally.

Alan Keyes has standing. He ran against Obama and if Obama was out of the way maybe he would have won. The courts would say that can’t be proven. No harm, no standing.

I believe the judges are all under threats to not do anything. Seriously this admin cares nothing for rule of law and I am sure phone calls, letters have been made similar to the media reports we have seen and heard. You take this on or even speak about it and your career is over.

What I feel should happen is the court should petition congress to redress the grievances and answer all the questions. That in itself would start another round of dismissals. Pelosi and the progressives who have wanted power for a long time are holding on tight. They are not going to venture anywhere near NBC. And I don’t know a judge who is willing to fight a administration. Especially one where they demand one party rule and obfuscations. 2010 may be Obama’s final stand when the party lines are more equal.

Oh hey, when the great 2010 dem party vote out happens, then the others up for vote in 2012 figure out they are next, we may get some dems stand up for truth too.

Someone posted in this thread that eventually Obama will do something and then his NBC status will be important. I think that is already happening. Truth always comes out. So much has come out and the communist healthcare power grab will do in his whole party. Add that to the liberals climate change hysteria to finalize the total control of the people, ACORN and the voter fraud, KSM terror trials and people figuring out Holder’s firm has ties to defending them, I think Obama will do himself in. I think those willing to put their neck out there will do similar things like the climate change hackers. Those who are suppose to shred documents simply won’t.

But that’s not to say I want any of these court cases to cease. I applaud these true Patriots. They are the same types who stood up for liberty and freedom and fought in our wars. I think all has to be done or America will not be the same for our children and grandchildren.

Anyone who mentions impeachment to Pelosi is going to get a broom up their A**! Hee!


32 posted on 11/21/2009 11:36:56 AM PST by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: OafOfOffice
You seem to be overlooking the use of interpleader in the Hollister case. The point of interpleader, as specifically stated in the federal interpleader act by the use of the word "may" and similarly in the language of Federal Rule of Procedure 22 is that standing is granted to the interpleader plaintiff to proceed in court in the anticipation of possible future conflicting claims upon, in this case, to use the word of the statute, his "obligation." The whole point of interpleader, tracing back into the common law, is to address what may happen in the future. Thus it is used in Hollister to address an order that may come but has not come yet. That is the difference between the Hollister case and the Rhodes case in Georgia. The interpleader claim gives a member of the Individual Ready Reserve the standing that Judge Robertson conceded in his opinion dismissing the case for a reason other than standing.
47 posted on 11/21/2009 5:12:43 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | 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