Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
But the judicial branch cannot possibly defend the people's constitutional liberties by itself engaging in extraconstitutional/unconstitutional actions - and make no mistake, a judicial order to remove a sitting President would clearly violate Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Let’s bet on the other parts of the constitution Dear Leader will violate next. I say, it will be the free speech rights of his political enemies.
I’ve been wondering for a long about what witnesses she was going to use, IE:expert witnesses etc.. If she asked them to lie, she needs to be let go..and what credibility left she had would be completely gone.
If so, he will do absolutely NOTHING about this matter.
If that's what you want, you get a similar result. There are few facts supporting this case. Mainly lots of speculation, supposition and wild-eyed nuttiness.
The only relevant fact is that BHO’s father wasn't a citizen. And that boat has sailed.
Indeed, sir. Let us all bid welcome to the Fourth Reich.
Or the RNC, or perhaps even Sarah Palin. Of course, while they would have standing, the other issue of justiciability wouldn't be met because Obama has already been installed in Office. As Carter points out in his ruling, the Congress is the only one that can remedy this now.
But, in 2012, his eligibility could be challenged by one of his Democrat opponents in the primary - unlikely sure, but legally possible.
The "mob" in this case is Orly and her followers.
That part did not sound like the same Judge Carter who presided over the Oct. 5th hearing.
Comparing the Judge's signature on the 5 September 8 Order setting the Scheduling Conferance to the on this document, they appear *Identical*. Now it's possible that the Clerk just pastes a copy of the Judges signature into these documents, and if so, then they would be identical, but if he signs them individually, they would not be identical. Very similar, but not identical. (I copied the signatures out of the PDF files, and then paste them one above the other in a Word document to make the comparson easier.)
hmmmmmmmmmm... wouldn't this give Orly standing as both zeros are disbarred?
Yeah, I know I'm being silly, I'm just tired (as many are) of all the ways people lie around the truth and how we are ALWAYS told what we cannot do.
Time is now to find out what we can do. Time to create laws for things we can do and not what we cannot.
Depends on which boob you believe more, Orly or that Lucas Smith guy. Lucas Smith claims that Orly Taitz Made Him Commit Perjury
And the Constitution states that the only way to remove a President from office is through the impeachment process. For a judge to issue an injunction removing a sitting President from office would be nothing short of judicial tyranny.
Terrorists and illegal aliens.
I guess you’ll be tapping the rum extra early tonight, huh?
AFTER-birther troll alert aka Obama supporter.
In Judge Carter’s opinion,
- prior to Obama’s swearing-in, Alan Keyes DID have standing
- after Obama’s swearing in, Obama IS POTUS and can only be removed by Congress. Only Congress has standing, as is outlined in the Constitution.
We at Free Republic view Obama’s eligibility to be in question, therefore the swearing-in was questionable. Judge Carter views the swearing in ceremony as the end-all.
OTOH - I think it will be nearly impossible for Obama to run for POTUS in 2012 without disclosing his BC. As soon as Obama officially declares himself a candidate for 2012, anyone who decides to run for POTUS can file suit for proof of eligibility.
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.