Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GregNH; rxsid; Red Steel; Seizethecarp
The government's defense is summarized in this article, essentially that this matter is not justicable and it is up to Congress to decide on the eligibility of a candidate.

I think Orly Taitz makes a better argument. She raises the issue of Obama's fraudulent SSN's and also raises the NBC issue. However, when I looked at the actual complaint on SCRIB a while back, Orly talked about Carter and Carter's law clerk from Perkins Coie, same firm as Bob Bauer.

50 posted on 04/25/2011 4:26:08 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: circumbendibus; GregNH; Red Steel; Seizethecarp
"The government's defense is summarized in this article, essentially that this matter is not justicable and it is up to Congress to decide on the eligibility of a candidate."

When the court falls in line with the Defense (and we all know they will), let's hope that when it gets appealed to SCOTUS that THEY (finally) live up to the expectations of the framers...that is, interpreting the framers intent with the Constitutional "natural born Citizen" requirement.

Chief Justice John Marshall in his 1821 opinion in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821) said:

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

 

A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court

"Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/briefoverview.aspx

Not only is "natural born Citizen" as it relates to AII,S1,C5 arising "under" the Constitution...it's IN the Constitution.

52 posted on 04/25/2011 5:54:33 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson