Posted on 10/31/2008 12:03:09 PM PDT by djf
For those who don't know, a "Quo Warranto" is an ancient common law writ which commands the court to determine "by what authority" a person or corporation acts. If a person were to get as much as a speeding ticket, he could file this type of writ against the police officer. The judge ain't gonna like it, and will probably chew you a new one, but it has to get answered.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/quo-warranto.htm
And being a "common law" writ, heres the good and juicy: EVERYONE HAS STANDING!
Here are a couple paragraphs from the writ:
Quo Warranto: 2. Pleadings in quo warranto are anomalous. In ordinary legal proceedings, the plaintiff, whether he be the state or a person, is bound to show a case against the defendant. But in an information of quo warranto, as well as in the writ for which it substituted, the order is reversed. The state is not bound to show anything, but the defendant is bound to show that he has a right to the franchise or office in question; and if he fail to show authority, judgment must be given against him. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier; 1868 - 1870
QUO WARRANTO, is hereby directed against defendant the BARACK OBAMA, et als,, acting under color of office within the State of Illinois, as SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as within the State of California, you are hereby commanded to show your lawful authority to instantly produce UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, your proper and lawful bona fides as required by the concise rule of law. WHEREAS, you are hereby directed to show your proper delegation legal authority thereby, under QUO WARRANTO terms and conditions cited herein in the following particulars:
To read the whole thing, see this link:
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/780/2/
“We need to beat them at the polls and not on technicalities”.
This sort of reasoning is why so much of our ruling class and much of the electorate treat the constitution like used toilet paper. Art. 2, sec 1 of the constitution is a KEY provision to help to ensure against usurpation of the office by an individual with potentially divided allegiances. Hell, it’s been hard enough to prevent that with undoubted natural born recent presidents, much less a lying crypto-marxist bastid like Obama. Even more importantly, consider this. If this thoroughly counterfeit fraud is willing to go to this length to subvert constitutional safeguards to cheat his way into office, what do you think he would do with the awesome power of the presidency behind him??? I think that he would go to ANY lengths, however ruthless and despotical, to retain power.
and Joe Biden from VP to Pres... with Nan next in line
On top of all that you guys who think it is ok for someone to steal the election because it might cause a bit of trouble, even riots, if the truth comes out need to have your heads examined. This is not some simple technicality, this is a major violation of the constitution, the law of the land and for Bozo, and the courts, to ignore it says to me there is something to it.
Let the marxists SOB show his original long form BC and get it over with, or let him be thrown out, simple as that.
I have a security clearance also. The last time the interviewer checked me out, he said I’m done in 15 mins. They all must have me on file. They need to spend time on more interesting background checks. I don’t change.
That’s the key. The judicial system must justify itself under Quo Warranto. Combine Spanish and Portoguese and end up in Latin. Under what authority? Under what rules? Based upon what decision? This must be answered directly and clearly. This is the way to deal with the foaming gay radicals in CA. No CA SC judge will want to deal with it in a public forum to justify theirself.
Or people assumed he would lose. I never could have imagined someone like him could win.
Technicality?
It’s a requirement of the Constitution, not a technicality.
How does one decide the parts of the Constitution to ignore?
“We need to beat them at the polls and not on technicalities.”
I don’t see it as a technicality, but that is exactly what it would be perceived as by the population at large - and the riots would be massive. Imagine the party of the “illegitimate Bush” robbing the “beloved world president” of his crown by means of the courts? It would push the left over the edge of the abyss.
We needed to beat Obama at the polls. We didn’t do that, not even close. If Obama gets his win taken away by the courts I will be cheering louder than any Freeper. But it ain’t gonna happen because the rules in this country only apply to those on the right.
“Imagine the party of the “illegitimate Bush” robbing the “beloved world president” of his crown by means of the courts? It would push the left over the edge of the abyss.”
You may be right. But I say this: if adherence to the constitution causes mobs and the left to lose their minds, so be it. Some things are worth fighting for and against, particularly mob rule. We should not fear the sight of chips falling. What other plainly obvious provision of the constitution is the left willing to jettison to retain power? Can you say 1st amendment (Fairness Doctrine) Article II Sec 2 (Civillian National Security Force) or other plainly obvious key provisions?
Not reason enough to ignore the constitution. Not even close.
I agree that something horrible and decietful is going on because he is not showing evidence that he is a us citizen and even if his birth certificate says he is he could have been raised in hawaii but born in indonesia and accordiing to the constitution he can’t have dual citizenship either because they consider that divided loyalty and with him knowing as much as he does now is dangerous. No matter how anyone looks at this situation for him to have gotten as far as he has i don’t know. You can’t even ask the man a question without him changing the subject and or him turning it back on them look at Joe the Plumber what obama has done to him and anyone who has spoke their mind or asked him things. He made a speech saying whoever is for the peace....but whoever disturbs it he would come against them and he made this speech after he got elected so what is that saying for all of us who did not vote for him. He says what people wants to hear but really he can make what he wants out of what he says and say people misunderstood him i think he is trying to talk to mccain and hilary and all them due to lack of excperience of course, but it makes me wounder if he wouldn’t turn around and blame them anyways if he made a wrong choice. Not to mention i think he is already doing stuff in the background against us!
Obama eligibility case survives 1st court test
A federal judge in California today listened to government lawyers argue that a lawsuit over President Obama’s eligibility should be immediately dismissed but refused to grant their request, saying he would make his decision and announce it later.
The result came this morning from U.S. District Judge David Carter, who already has set a tentative trial date for the dispute Jan. 26, 2010. The judge also already had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings and deadlines in preparation for the trial.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112015
http://bit.ly/WkA8K
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.