Posted on 08/23/2010 7:19:58 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A district court's ruling in a dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, if allowed to stand, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave the laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority," according to a new filing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, who was a vice presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.
The case also involves a long list of additional plaintiffs, including ambassador Alan Keyes, and they are being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and are filing their pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.
The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation for that status, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.
However, he dismissed it because of his opinion that the plaintiffs suffered no injury – so they didn't have "standing" – and the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues so a court should not step in.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
How can a citizen lack standing when he’s being governed by someone who may be ineligible to do so????
They are terrified of what will happen if Obama is disqualified. This doesn’t excuse them!
Mario’s appeal to SCOTUS must be coming up soon.
It is a lousy headline. The Judge has been “told” nothing. Orly merely filed an appeal brief with the 9th circuit making this point. It is a brief, and not a judicial order telling the lower court judge to do anything.
Sheesh.
Good question.
No, Gary Kreep filed this brief.
IMO all of these lawsuits are failing because they need to sue the DEMOCRAT party to show proof of citizenship
they can sue Obama to demand proof but he does not need to show proof until eternity passes but according to the constitution, the DEMOCRAT party is responsible for vetting its candidates
Read Judge Carter's ruling. It's in there. Link
Where does the Constitution say that?
The point is that it is a brief, and so the headline is misleading.
but then the republican party is a spineless termite worm so i doubt it will happen
They will allow this con to continue because they all know that they have been swindled but did not have the courage to speak out.
LOL!
We need to hire an illegal to file.
A gay, black, transsexual, Muslim with AIDs, in the country illegally would have the highest standing.
The Constitution does not even recognize or speak of political parties.
IMHO, it is the STATES who have this responsibility, before they put a name on the ballot.
Good Idea. But you have no ‘standing’.
Yeah, Orly filed this one. I dare you to scroll to the last page and read the final paragraphs with a straight face. Link
I'd like to see it.
Thanks.
There is nothing in the Constitution with regards to parties. I would highly recommend that you read Article 2 which defines the requirements of the office of President (Clause 5).
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “
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.