Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Well said.
Sorry, Sir...the ELECTION only makes him president if he meets the requirements SET OUT BY THE CONSTITUTION, which he has not ever proven up to one soul on this earth.
Fine. Take your conspiracy theories to Congress & the Courts and...oh wait. You’ve done that, and they all laugh at you.
Wonder why...
If this is the best Lakin can count on, he is TOAST!
If Obama can say FU to this entire nation by refusing to show what he’s hiding in his fist behind his back, then why the heck shouldn’t Cheney be able to do the same thing?
Two can play this game. Obama is a coward. Cheney has balls.
Two can play that game, and they did.
If you don’t like what Cheney did, - if you want him to complete the legal requirements so the process can happen as the Constitution and laws prescribe - then why don’t you just try to sue him? Like Kerchner did. That’s your legal recourse. You can’t just take the law into your own hands.
Why have you not gotten ONE GRAND JURY to force Cheney to ask the question so the laws can be followed? Why hasn’t ONE GRAND JURY taken up the issue and forced him to do it?
Kerchner filed his case; it’s still in process. The election has never been certified just like Obama’s eligibility has never been proven.
If you don’t want one person to be able to hijack the system, then maybe you should think twice about what Obama has been doing for the last 2 years.
Well, yes, there is, an order to deploy from a fraud sitting in the Commandere in Chief’s chair IS ILLEGAL!
So if Gore had refused to ask the question in 20001, GWB would have been illegally in office and the military should have disobeyed his orders?
I like you, BDZ, but you are in nutjob territory now. Deep, deep, DEEP in nutjob territory.
Do you have ANY proof Obama is ineligible? No? Which is why Lakin will LOSE.
The Electoral College cast their votes. The Congress, sitting in Joint Session approved those votes in accordance with the 12th Amendment and without written objection. You continue to ignore these incontrovertible facts in pursuit of your delusional fantasies. And you wonder why your only supporters can do nothing but sling insults and demands that their unfounded assertions be accepted at face value.
Meanwhile, out in reality land, some really good people are working hard to defeat Obama’s supporters in the Congress and will continue to work to defeat him in 2012. Too bad you aren’t among them. Gotta run, my plane boards in 10 minutes.
See the 12th Amendment. I’d send it to you, but I have to catch a plane
Do you have any proof whatsoever that is qualified and sitting in that chair legally?
I guess the solution is to execute Cheney for Treason then. Take it to DU.
If Gore had refused to ask the question somebody would have had to file a lawsuit to force him to do it. If SCOTUS refused to take up the issue the country would have been without a lawful CINC then just like we are now.
That’s why SCOTUS’ refusal to hear Kerchner’s case on the merits and resolve the issue is a danger to our national security.
I would like to believe they have a darn good reason they’ve done this, but on the other hand the only reason I can think of that would justify such a thing is if resolving the issue would CERTAINLY jeopardize the very existence of the country, because not having a lawful CINC in the middle of (at that time) two theaters of war is downright stupid if not a huge danger to national security.
To be without a valid CINC while Iran is getting nuclear weapons is a critical danger to the entire world.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
I suspect that when this is all ironed out, Cheney will end up the hero. But that’s just a hunch so we’ll have to wait and see.
Well, that was intelligent. lol
Glad you’re enjoying yourself.
No, the solution is to make him prove up his eligibility and prosecute him for fraud and treason if he can’t.
Some have no idea what the repercussions this could have on our soldiers if we find a total constitutional crisis that even questions our sovereignty whereby our troops could be deemed to be there illegally shooting guns at people and destroying property.
And if you think that some nut job like China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Lebanon, Syria, and a few in Europe and Africa wouldn’t use that as an excuse and confiscate our military leaders all over the place and take them to world court, then I say you are crazier than a bedbug or possibly a loon.
The public law - passed by Congress, so I guess they know how they meant it - says, “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015——000-.html
“the President of the Senate shall call for objections, IF ANY”
And if not? Remember, the folks who wrote the law were there in 2009...
For anybody else who is following along just let me say: It cannot be known which person had the most votes if it’s never been determined whether all the votes will stand or whether they will be disqualified because of an objection. The vote count was stopped in mid-process, before any potential objections and disqualifications were addressed. There is no way to legally know what the final count ever was because the final step in the process never happened.
That’s like ending last year’s Nebraska-Texas football game without ever waiting to hear the result of the officials’ review to see whether one second needed to be put back on the clock. You’re not done if the results of a review are still pending. If you’re a Nebraskan and you celebrate winning the game when you know the play is being reviewed you’re a moron.”
Actually, you're stepping outside of the process and assuming “objection in perpetuity,” which is a common error. It's also known as the unstated objection, implicit objection, etc.
In your football analogy, there are rules as to when a replay determination will be made. Some are automatic, some are inferential, and some can be requested by a coach. Note, however, that none of those rules can be invoked by the fans in the stand. They don't get to challenge the people actually running the game.
Further, if the decision to make a replay determination does not occur, the issue is moot once another play has been run. That is, the time for objection has passed and the game unfolds without further recourse. The fact that fans in the stadium are watching an instant replay and believe a call was wrong is immaterial. That's also the result if anyone disagrees with the official. If the official had decided that, “nope there isn't a second left,” Texas could have argued until it was blue in the face and the game would still have been over with Nebraska victorious. That decision could not be repeatedly revisited by everyone with a sense of grievance. That's one of the things that rules, or legal processes, are intended to do—provide closure.
In the case of Obama’s election, there was a time for the “officials” (i.e., state election officials, electors, Congresspersons, and Vice-President Cheney) to object. They didn't do so. No replay review was initiated and the next play was run. The Presidential election process reached its conclusion with Obama victorious. Legally, that decision cannot be revisited by everyone with a sense of grievance.
You may firmly believe you have proof that Obama was not eligible. No one acted upon that before the game was declared over. Under the Constitution, your only recourse now is to either (1) seek an indictment for fraud from a prosecutor, or (2) convince a Congressperson to initiate an investigation and/or impeachment inquiry.
I’ve already seen it, enjoy your trip, you might read Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution on your plane ride.
One ICBM in each of their capitals would solve that problem.
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.