Skip to comments.
Judges told they should resolve eligibility dispute
WND ^
| August 22, 2010
| Bob Unruh
Posted on 08/23/2010 7:19:58 PM PDT by RobinMasters
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: RobinMasters
How can a citizen lack standing when he’s being governed by someone who may be ineligible to do so????
2
posted on
08/23/2010 7:25:26 PM PDT
by
hometoroost
(I'm sorry did you say "post racial" president or "most racial" president?)
To: RobinMasters
They are terrified of what will happen if Obama is disqualified. This doesn’t excuse them!
3
posted on
08/23/2010 7:26:17 PM PDT
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
To: RobinMasters
Mario’s appeal to SCOTUS must be coming up soon.
4
posted on
08/23/2010 7:26:21 PM PDT
by
Frantzie
(Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
To: RobinMasters
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.
To: hometoroost
How can a citizen lack standing when he’s being governed by someone who may be ineligible to do so????
It's marxist speak for to h*ll with Constitutional rights.
6
posted on
08/23/2010 7:27:16 PM PDT
by
Man50D
(Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
To: hometoroost
7
posted on
08/23/2010 7:28:07 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
("They do their business behind closed doors, and pretend that the world is just beggin' for more.")
To: AndyJackson
No, Gary Kreep filed this brief.
To: RobinMasters
i am not a constitutional scholar but the constitution reads that vetting the POTUS candidate is the responsibility of the political party, NOT the candidate.,
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
9
posted on
08/23/2010 7:30:26 PM PDT
by
KTM rider
( ..........tell me this really isn't happening ! !)
To: hometoroost
How can a citizen lack standing when he’s being governed by someone who may be ineligible to do so???? Read Judge Carter's ruling. It's in there. Link
To: KTM rider
i am not a constitutional scholar but the constitution reads that vetting the POTUS candidate is the responsibility of the political party, NOT the candidate., Where does the Constitution say that?
To: cycle of discernment
The point is that it is a brief, and so the headline is misleading.
To: Man50D
the republican party has standing to sue the democrat party to show proof of citizenship of its candidate.
but then the republican party is a spineless termite worm so i doubt it will happen
13
posted on
08/23/2010 7:34:36 PM PDT
by
KTM rider
( ..........tell me this really isn't happening ! !)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
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.
14
posted on
08/23/2010 7:34:50 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
To: hometoroost
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.
15
posted on
08/23/2010 7:35:02 PM PDT
by
NoLibZone
(I am currently under federal investigation by the DNC for my opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.)
To: KTM rider
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.
16
posted on
08/23/2010 7:35:28 PM PDT
by
Kansas58
To: KTM rider
Good Idea. But you have no ‘standing’.
To: cycle of discernment
No, Gary Kreep filed this brief. Yeah, Orly filed this one. I dare you to scroll to the last page and read the final paragraphs with a straight face. Link
To: KTM rider
If you would, please provide the Article and Section in the COTUS which supports your claim that the political party should vet the candidate.
I'd like to see it.
Thanks.
19
posted on
08/23/2010 7:36:24 PM PDT
by
Bosco
(Remember how you felt on September 11?)
To: KTM rider
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. “
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-124 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson