Under the 10th Amendment don't the people reserve the power to enforce those provisions?
I need whole drawer full of these:
Posted on 03/08/2010 7:17:38 PM PST by Man50D
One of the banks of attorneys assigned to quash demands for documentation that President Obama is constitutionally eligible to occupy the Oval Office is counting on a ruling that American citizens have no "standing" to demand that information.
The attorneys argued in a brief submitted to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the same injury for all people, so the individual has no legal standing to complain.
WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The courts have been wrong so far. We have the right to an honest election. The secretaries of state, congress, and the electoral college did not perform their ministerial duties. We have standing to know about the candidates, especially the one who was elected.
It would seem to me that any one on the left who agrees with the direction the anointed one is pushing the country would be proof that anyone on opposition should have standing from the ‘injury’ perspective. Clearly, someone who encourages the further spread of this vermin’s socialist pogroms would NOT consider themselves ‘injured’ by the changes they seek. That would be sufficient to lay to waste the argument that an injury to one is an injury to all...
Of course, then there is legitimate logic that would tend to support the notion that anyone who voted in the election, or anyone who ran for the office of President, should have standing, as an active participant in the process.
It’s still time to take back the country.
I doubt that the 3rd circuit will take the case. If there is collusion among the political appointees in the federal courts, it is to buy time while the assault on our Constitution still has the support of majorities in both houses.
The opposition brief filed by Obama attorneys carefully avoids factual information and uses the fact that Berg's case was rejected on standing as precedent. It avoids mentioning that Obama told us his father was a British subject and thus his son was also a British subject. It avoids Article II, it is about the politics of standing - about who can claim a unique injury. The courts will avoid this issue unless more of the public learns the truth - that birth certificates were distraction, and probably deliberate misdirection; the real issue, Obama's alien father is a fact and a direct violation of Article II Section 1.
If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass.
there is only one way to get him to release records— (read section 3.)
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
I believe you to be correct.
I guess the founders screwed up and left out the Judiciary when the they tried to protect the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Course there was something, even before the 1st amendment was written about The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
But the judiciary has, by use of "precedent" piled on "precedent" converted "all" to "some".
This is called lying.
Hawaii Wants to Fine Me After Framing Me [Thug-o-crats seek-and-destroy ‘Birthers’]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2466896/posts
“The Office of Taxation wants to fine people who are labeled ‘vexatious requestors’”
Under the 10th Amendment don't the people reserve the power to enforce those provisions?
I need whole drawer full of these:
I would like someone out there to explain how someone can get standing to sue in Federal Court to have a cross removed from a lone hill in the Mojave Desert according to these rules. These alleged rules of standing are bent and twisted and broken all the time.
The same can be said for someone who embezzles funds from the governmment of all the people. So the individual has no legal standing to complain about that either????
“From all I have read on this subject, it would appear that NO ONE in America has any standing to question if their political candidates are “Elegible” or not.”
Here’s my puzzle. Defendants are claiming: “any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the same injury for all people”
So how come a lawyer can’t just bring a class action suit on behalf of “all people”????? I get notices of all sorts of class action suits on behalf of customers who bought product X between such and such dates. Both the damages and proposed restitution are trivial, e.g., the equivalent of a $10 gift certificate, but that doesn’t seem to stop lawyers from filing these suits and apparently winning occasionally. The point is, standing never seems to be an issue in these so long as there is an identifiable class of people harmed. Any legal beagles here who know the answer to that?
“he’s already done.”
We can all see the story line already. Obama was a “brave” president who took on all the special interests on behalf of trying to get “the people” health care they needed. These dumb and impressionable people sadly were duped by lies and distortions made about Obamacare, and for that reason he had to try to just “ram it through” Congress. It wasn’t his fault Pelosi and/or Reid screwed up and couldn’t corral enough votes.
It just goes to show that honest and principled politicians cannot beat the corrupt American political system, so Barack regrettably has concluded that it is a waste of his outsized talents to keep butting his head against the wall trying to fight parochial special interests. He will forego his 2nd term in favor of being named U.N. Secretary etc.
“Word now is that the 3rd Cir is going to grant review; hold that the parentage concepts incorporated in the “Natural Born” requirement were eliminated by the born in the USA provisions of the 14th Amendment.”
This is a naked attempt, through the courts, to null the U.S.Constitution via Judicial fiat rather than enact a change through the amendment process.
I don’t think it will work - SCOTUS will not let this ride.
The 14th Amendment has been used to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. That was not its original intent. Rep. John Bingham was the ‘father’ of the 14th Amendment, meant to affirm citizenship to U.S. born slaves.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
As to who has standing, that is anyone who has been injured by the present Administration. And there are folks who have been seriously injured, like the former owners of Chrysler dealerships, who lost their businesses and livelihoods.
These former owners of Chrysler dealerships have standing. They were seriously harmed by the Obama administrtion. Leo Donofrio is one of their attorneys, and he knows how to sue Obama, via Quo Warranto, in the Washington, D.C., District Court. This would force Obama to prove he is eligible to be President.
Here’s why it must be done this way.
Congress, not the Judicial Branch, is responsible for removing elected officials from office, for example, using impeachment against officials accused of crimes.
The power to remove a ‘usurper’ from political office was delegated by Congress to the District Court of Washington, D.C., in an action called Quo Warranto.
The Chrysler dealers have taken on “Old Chrysler” for illegally taking away their dealerships and the Judge overseeing that case committed intentional fraud.
“Public Docket For Chrysler Bankruptcy Has Been Sabotaged To Conceal The Fraudulent Dealer Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzalez.”
This Judge Gonzalez recieved a promotion from Obama during this court action. Talk about corruption!!
This is going to be a hot summer, if not a hot two years, politically and judicially speaking.
I will not be surprised if Obama desperately tries to declare a national emergency and Martial Law to put a halt to elections and all judicial proceedings.
See posting #35
Oddly enough, I recall having this exact same conversation in 2002-2008. This is exactly what the crazy left was saying about Bush. It was pointless hysteria then, and it's pointless hysteria now.
This could, in some mysterious way, be a GOOD THING. An appeal would have to go directly to the SCOTUS. IMHO, the 14th Amendmendment makes all citizens equal, but does establish different kinds of citizens. Article II says only one kind can be POTUS.
In 2013-2017 we'll have to listen to the other side lament how President GOP-Whoever will be implementing martial law and suspending whatnot.
At least some of these folks here will come to their sense when they see the pendulum swing away.
Yes! I remember that - only we scoffed knowing that Dubya was a patriotic man who served his nation in the military.
Obama hates the United States. His parents were communists (or at least leaned that way), his mentor definitely was a card carrying Commie, and the college-age Barack certainly ‘hung’ with those kinds of people. His administration is filled with radicals, socialists and communists.
So, now I’m hysterical and pointless because a group of liberals accused Bush of being a Fascist?
Dear Freeper friend - I don’t follow your logic.
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.
