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

To: Nero Germanicus
No, the legal strategy did not make sense. But, some people made a lot of money selling books, tapes and soliciting donations to pursue the matter. There were a lot of people who just could not accept the way that history was unfolding and they were willing to believe just about anything and even to donate their own money to try to altar that history. And, there were people who were willing to take that money.

I just cannot imagine a court attempting to disqualify a candidate for president. The Constitution plainly states who is to choose our presidents and it is not the courts. If they are ever stupid enough to get involved in that, they will deserve all the craziness that it will bring them. Can you imagine them being forced to treat each candidate as a paternity case? And, they got a chance to see that the people who bring cases like this have no trust or faith in the government documents that the courts would usually rely upon. Every adverse document is called a fraud and worthy of still another case for the courts.

The judiciary of this country will always be smart enough to leave these questions to the voters and to the Electors. No one who is truly disconnected from this country will ever be elected. There is no real problem for the courts to solve.

517 posted on 11/22/2015 7:37:46 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food

With regard to Barack Obama, several courts ruled that they would have entertained questions of his eligibility while he was a candidate but not after he received a majority of the votes of the Electors and was sworn in to office.
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitutions mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
The process for removal of a sitting president— removal for any reason, is within the province of the Congress, not the Courts.
Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09

Also most of the states have election laws that permit opposing candidates to challenge the credentials of other candidates but McCain, Palin, Romney and Ryan did not challenge Obama and neither did the Republican Party or any other political party.


519 posted on 11/23/2015 11:01:19 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | 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