To: Danae
He is going to ask the SCOTUS to change the law in essence. To make it possible for the average person to question the qualifications of a candidate for President. This is either a Pandora's Box, or a chance for the average Man to have a say with just cause to do so. Wrong. The problem is that there is no specific law deliniating who exactly has the right {standing} to legally raise the question of a person's birthplace qualification to be President of the United States as demanded in the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not say.
59 posted on
10/25/2008 4:18:34 PM PDT by
Turret Gunner A20
(The FairTax -- the largest magnet for capital and jobs in history. John Snow)
To: Turret Gunner A20
I know. Its all based on what are mostly Tax cases, rulings based on Precedence. Surrick does say that his court lacks Jurisdiction to decide the matter, and so by matter of law, he had to dismiss it.
72 posted on
10/25/2008 4:24:22 PM PDT by
Danae
(Obama = Trickle up Poverty. Don't like it, get ready to be"reeducated" into it if he is elected.)
To: Turret Gunner A20
“The Constitution itself does not say.”
Actually, it does..
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “
The problem is getting a Judge to recognize this ‘fact’..
98 posted on
10/25/2008 4:38:26 PM PDT by
Bigh4u2
(Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
To: Turret Gunner A20
" Wrong. The problem is that there is no specific law deliniating who exactly has the right {standing} to legally raise the question of a person's birthplace qualification to be President of the United States as demanded in the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not say. "
" The Constitution itself does not say "
Thomas Jefferson ? John Adams ? James Madison ? why ohhh why didn't you make this more clear to us ? why ? ...
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson