This is evading. Seizethecarp the has summed it up appropriately:
- - - - - - -
““Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
Id. at 483 n.5. We agree.”
WOW!
I read this to mean:
The Court (the District Court) acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area (clarifying Obama’s constitutional NBC status). We (3rd Circuit Appeals court) agree.
In other words, the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court agrees with the District Court’s frustration with Congress’ inaction in failing to clarify Obama’s constitutional NBC status.
45 posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 5:12:30 PM by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report
- - - - - - -
The court refuse to take up the case because Congress failed in their responsibility by not vetting Obama properly as a natural born citizen, therefore, why should “We” in the judiciary have to do it? Clearly they are evading the issue just as Justice Clarence Thomas has said.
About the sanctions, the little pansies on the 3rd are miffed because Appuzo failed to cite their Berg case.
It’s not the responsibility of Congress to vet candidates. That is the duty of the chief election official, usually an elected Secretary of State in each of the fifty states. The Chief Election official enforces the election laws and the ballot requirements of that state.
For example, to get on the ballot for the Democratic Primary in the state of Arizona in 2008, a candidate had to sign a statement that he or she was a natural born citizen. Barack Obama signed that statement. If he is not a natural born citizen or if there was a legitimate question about that issue, the state of Arizona could and should have done the vetting BEFORE the STATE RUN primary election.
Obama announced his candidacy on February 10. 2007. There was a year and a half to vet him.
Here’s a copy of the “Arizona Candidate Nomination Paper” for Barack Obama. Note that it is signed and notarized.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
Now if there was anything at all to this silly birther mythology, any prosecuting attorney in a conservative state like Arizona could have convened a grand jury investigation into whether Obama committed fraud when he signed a notarized statement that he is a natural born citizen and therefore was eligible to be on the Democratic Primary ballot in Arizona. HE SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT!!! There were other states that required similiar notarized statements and signatures.
Yeah, Apuzzo might get his ignorant butt sanctioned. Judges don’t take too kindly to advocates who are too stupid to perform the due diligence that you learn in any halfway decent law school.
Lawyers tend to lose lawsuits and get sanctioned when the judges feel that the attorney is trying to pull an unethical fast one.
Pathetic?
The 3rd Appeals Court:
"The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's frustration with what they perceive as Congress's inaction in this area.
We agree."
The court here is NOT agreeing that they agree Kerchner and Apuzzo are frustrated as that would be silly. Of course the Plaintiff and his counselor are frustrated. What the court is saying is that they are too nonplussed, frustrated, and feel that the ball has been unfairly put in in their court. It is a moment of the court being candid.
If you don’t want a person with a father born in Kenya to be president, vote for Representatives and Senators who will change or further define the law and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment.
Now this is a completely ignorant statement by you.
Obama's father being born in Kenya is not the issue or has it ever been the issue. What is at issue is that Barack Sr. was a foreign national who passed on his foreign citizenship to his son Obama. A birthright citizenship.
You further show your complete ignorance by stating that Congress can define or change the natural born citizenship clause. The Constitutional NBC clause cannot be changed as it still has the same meaning and intent as at the time of adoption of the US Constitution in 1787. Moreover, the 14th Amendment never changed or was it intended to change the meaning of the NBC clause. If you want the NBC clause changed to whatever...you clown Jameseee, you have to amend the US Constitution with an Amendment that would follow the 27th Amendment.