Dr. Manning: We have proof of Obama’s ineligibility

thepostemail ^ | 4/27/2010 | Sharon Rondeau

[Natural Born 54]

Thank you, that’s exactly what I wanted to know.

So original jurisdiction is granted when the state is the plaintiff? That would then include a state filing a case against the President, against whatever entity (justice dept.?) would enforce a Fed. law signed by the President. Like Lakin, a state could refuse to accept a law based on the fact that the president had no authority to sign the law because he is ineligible to hold office. Either directly or indirectly, the eligibility issue COULD be brought by a state and the case would have to be heard if I understand this correctly. Would the Supreme Court HAVE to allow discovery? Could they take the case and then dismiss it?

[Red Steel]

Either directly or indirectly, the eligibility issue COULD be brought by a state
Yes

and the case would have to be heard if I understand this correctly.

No, they can refuse any case.

Would the Supreme Court HAVE to allow discovery?

They could send the case back to a lower court for it to initiate discovery.

Could they take the case and then dismiss it?

If they took an eligibility case, they'd hear it which would take 5 votes in the affirmative for the plaintiff to win.

[Red Steel]

So original jurisdiction is granted when the state is the plaintiff?

The Supreme Court has "Original jurisdiction" over every court of law inside the United States. Everything court is their domain.

[Natural Born 54]

Thank you.

Well, some good and some bad in that answer. Overall, do you think it would be worthwhile for a state to do this?

[Red Steel]

Yeah, I’d certainly like to see a state take up the eligibility issue against Obama as The standing issue roadblock would appear to me to be breached.

[Natural Born 54]

The home state of Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin would be an appropriate choice. Did a search on him. No one it seems is interested in biographical information about him outside of his military career. Hence I was unable to find out which state he calls home.

[Red Steel]

He’s originally from Greeley, Colorado. He probably now has a domicile in some other state.

[Natural Born 54]

I wonder if the reality of a state bringing the suit would goose them out of their avoidance mode?

Maybe it would be best to have a group of states do it? That would carry more weight. Refusing to hear a case filed by multiple states - that would be a real hot potato.

Getting a group of states to do it - I haven’t a clue if it’s feasible.

[Natural Born 54]

Hope so. Colorado wouldn’t be my first choice.

[Red Steel]

I wonder if the reality of a state bringing the suit would goose them out of their avoidance mode?

Chrissy Matthews, BlowhardMann, and Sissy Cooper, would be peeing down their legs and fly spittle.

[big'ol_freeper]

And of course this evidence was collected from the African Press International I am sure.

[Natural Born 54]

The mental vision is making my leg tingle.

[rxsid]

"And of course this evidence was collected from the African Press International I am sure."

naw, if he were inclined to do that, he might as well go strait to the members of the Kenyan parliament instead (or Barry's wife for that matter).

[Bellflower]

Thanks for your thoughts. You may be right but at times I have dreams that actually seem quite prophetic. Another interesting thing about my dream is that all the seats faced forward as seats do in auditoriums but I was sitting in a row of seats about 4 or 5 deep that were perpendicular to the podium and to watch the preacher those in these seats had to turn sideways in their seats. Any thoughts about that?

[penelopesire]

You very well may have prophetic dreams sometimes too.Many people do...it’s just that most people don’t know it when it happens.

I come at dream interpretation from a Jungian angle and contrary to what most liberals have tried to make of Carl Jung..he was deeply spiritual,a conservative thinker and a believer in God(yes..the liberals took over Jungian psychology too years ago...just like they do everything...lol).

Anyway...the perpendicular seating could mean that you are not quite comfortable facing your anger sometimes...but what your dream(unconscous) is perhaps trying to convey is that it is a ‘righteous’ anger and perfectly acceptable. Remember..from the dream, the preacher(an aspect of you) is determined not to ‘lie’ to the congregation about what the ‘liberals’ are doing anymore. He is full of righteous anger. You are in the dream kinda looking at the events from the ‘sidelines’, so to speak..but you are ‘turning’ to face it head on regardless.

You of course are the only one that can really interpret what the symbols mean to you by walking through them. Is ‘church’ something you have grown up being comfortable in, etc. Do ‘mega churches’ hold any special meaning to you. Do you like the big ‘mega churches’ or do you prefer the smaller more intimate churches. You get my drift?

I could also be full of poppycock too..lol. It’s been a long time since I even thought about Jungian stuff, so it’s a very rusty ‘knowledge’. Hope this helps.

[David]

What I had actually asked you was to respond specifically to my post which I will paste in here: I’m no constitutional lawyer but while reading the threads on the states’ filings against the health care bill, I noted that Florida and Virginia filed IIRC in a circuit court and expected the case to get bumped to the Supreme Court. I believe a circuit court can pass on a case if they choose and pass it up to the next level. At any rate, a case filed by a state HAS to be taken by SCOTUS, according to the articles I read. So I thought, why not an eligibility case? If EVERY case brought by a state has to be taken, then the states would automatically get standing. A lawyer should check this theory out since I picked up the notion from several articles written by journalists who may or may not have had their facts correct.

First place, the Supreme Court doesn't ever "has to" address a case on the merits. I know what the Constitution says but the Court often takes right of appeal cases and responds affirmed or reversed or see our decision in XYZ accordingly or something else and that is all you get.

A suit between two states is a little different and more likely to be considered (one state suing another) but I don't see how to get Obama into one of those.

Note that your question is addressed to original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The Health Care bill gets there on appeal at this point because although the states are a party, the cases were filed in District Courts. I am on your side of that issue--original jurisdiction should have been considered.

On the other hand, getting some momentum among enough states to make an impact was not easy so the health care cases were filed where they were filed.

However with respect to the birth location issue, what relief does a state ask for in such a suit? See what drives the standing issue law is that the judge needs to see a real argument that makes a difference to the parties; where he has jurisdiction over the parties and the matter in dispute and where he can enter an order that says "A wins" and if B doesn't do what he tells them A is entitled to, he sends the US Marshal out to make it happen.

So what does the state's pleading to the Supreme Court or elsewhere say to present an issue where you meet these criteria? Who do you sue? How is the state hurt by what it is complaining about? You and I understand how Obama has used the force of his office to get a patently unconstitutional health care bill passed but his direct action on the bill was limited--he signed the bill; it would have become law without his signature. Other than that, his participation was indirect.

There is a much more direct attack on this issue.

You find a party to a state lawsuit where the state supreme court ruled in their favor; the losing party appeals to the U S Supreme Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari and gets the four Justice vote to hear the case, one of which Justices is Sonya Sotomayor. The Respondent (the party that won before the state supreme court) hires you and you seek to dismiss the case on the grounds Sonya is not a Justice because the Constitution says she must be appointed by a "President" and the guy who appointed her (Obama) wasn't because the Constitution says he is not eligible to act in that office.

A variation of that attack is to move on behalf of any party to a Supreme Court appeal to exclude Sonya as a Justice to hear the case on those grounds. Problem is that parties don't want to do that because many possibles will think Sonya may be leaning their way.

There are lots of possible arguments you could make under the Constitutional jurisdiction clause--on balance, I think you aren't going to get the court to consider an argument based on a new standard.

A variation of my use of the collateral attack on Sonya arises when the Health Care Bill case is appealed to the Supreme Court. At the point where the appeal is mature, the states party to the main case initiate a new action to raise the Sonya issue.

You need to recognize that the Supreme Court isn't going to go out of its way to address this case--so if you are going to attempt to get a decision at that level, you need to have a relatively clear jurisdictional and justiciable line of attack.

[LucyT]

Check out David's comments at # 113 and # 136.

[Thanks, David.]

[Natural Born 54]

Thank you very much for the explanation. Should have known that nothing having to do with eligibility subject would be easy or cut and dry.

I just wrote out a long question to you and erased it. I need to think go over this a few times and think about it.

I’ll try one simple one instead. The simple (maybe not so simple) question is - is there any way the states suing over the health care bill can insert the Sotomayer issue into the case? You said “A variation of that attack is to move on behalf of any party to a Supreme Court appeal to exclude Sonya as a Justice to hear the case on those grounds.” (I note the word “appeal” which may make this not applicable unless the circuit court first rules against them?)

If there were a way to insert that issue into the current case, I wouldn’t think holding back would make sense. I very much doubt Sonya would come down on the side of the states. Almost no chance IMO. So, what can the states do with this? What’s the risk of including it?

My guess on the risk is that the court, because they really want to avoid the eligibility issue, would decline to hear the case at all.

P.S. I feel bad bothering you with this, especially when I am not a lawyer and don’t have knowledge of the procedures involved. I will cease and desist after this. It would just be so nice to actually have eligibility addressed fairly in court. A resolution, be it positive or negative, would clarify what we the people have to or don’t have to do about it ourselves. In the legal experiences I have had or have had knowledge of personally, the very best outcome was the right decision was made by the court but the good guy was SOL anyway. The worst was the good guy lost and justice never entered the picture. One hopes the Supreme Court might do better than that.

[April Lexington]

Drip... drip... drip...

[Bellflower]

I have found from my own life that there is me and there is The LORD. When a dream is from The LORD it isn’t the same as when I have a dream that has to do with my own psychology though I think we can, as you show, learn about ourselves through the dreams that we ourselves have apart from a dream that truly comes from The LORD which falls into an altogether different category.