Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
urging her followers to bring unconstitutional pressure to bear on the courts and judges.
LOL! LOL!
She is a good dentist though
IV. DISPOSITION [p.29-30]
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process.Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2009
_______________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Judge
What I gather is that the Judge has ruled his opinion that at the moment Obama was sworn in he officially became President and after that moment standing to remove him by civilians and military members ceased to exist except for only Congress through impeachment or the 25th ammendment.
What Carters message in his decision also means is that since Obama will be a incumbent President in the next election, no other upcoming challenging candidate will have standing either because he will still be the President during the next campaign because he was sworn in office in 09. Congress will still be the only entity to have standing.
It has nothing to do with disagreement, it does have to do with the law and the Constitution - she misrepresents both.
Thanks for your comment.
This judge has been very patient in allowing an inexperienced and often emotional attorney to be heard. It just comes down to him saying no when asked to do something outside his power. He could have issued this same ruling on the day of the hearing but, instead, he took the time to give a careful analysis setting forth what can and can’t be done and why. Had he ruled the other way, he would have been overturned on appeal by tomorrow evening.
My point is simply that the judge clearly left the door open for allowing a candidate to establish that he was individually damaged so long as there is an available remedy. By making a monetary claim, the same underlying issue remains but the remedy sought is legitimate for a plaintiff to request and within the power of a district judge to grant. There would be no problem with separation of powers or of a court intruding into a political matter.
Exactly. From “Semper Fi,” Marine hero of Khe Sanh, to gutless tool of the vast conspiracy.
When the same thing keeps happening over and over again, you can either figure out that it’s not working, or go deeper down the rabbit hole.
Man, you got things totally twisted around. I'm not the one whining and bitching when people disagree with me. That's what you guys have been doing. I suggest you go back and read the post I replied to.
I knew you would find something positive in this. God bless you!
Never give up! Never! Never! Never!
I am not giving no weight to the Art. II Sec 1 requirements. I am simply stating that, once an individual has been sworn in and is serving as President of the United States, it is NOT the role of the judicial branch to determine that individual’s qualifications, nor is it the role of the judicial branch to remove an unqualified President from office. That responsibility falls to Congress - the House’s job is to impeach the President, and the Senate’s job is to conduct a trial and remove the President.
You are asking the judicial branch to overstep it’s CONSTITUTIONAL role in the name of upholding the Constitution. Doesn’t work like that.
NO ONE said we (doesn’t include you) are! But we (doesn’t include you) aren’t clueless what your boy is up to. OK, you got that, skippy? Your snide remarks to a freeper who is considered about his/her country is NOT warranted! Take your anti-American spirit and get lost.
Oh, and BTW — it is NOT a lie that a COLB doesn’t necessarily prove where someone was physically born (especially in Hawaii, but in all other states as well).
Anyone who has EVER been involved in the adoption records activism community would be able to tell you about literally thousands of people over the years who have discovered outright FRAUDULENT information on their Birth Certificates - and we’re not talking about names here. We’re talking about DATES of BIRTH, and the PLACES of Birth, too.
And, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY of these cases against Obama, and is something I found out over 12 years ago when I worked on changing adoption records laws in various states. It’s plain and simply NOT a lie, and frankly I take offense to your calling it such. Hell, I could give you exact NAMES of people I know who “don’t exist” prior to an ILLEGAL BC after an ILLEGAL adoption was performed — don’t bother asking for the names though, I can’t violate people’s privacy except to tell you that I know these people PERSONALLY and they have gone to court to get access to their records held by the state. And I know TWO people PERSONALLY who don’t “exist” prior to their adoption. Stolen babies and forged BCs are nothing new. [And, no I’m NOT saying Obama was the victim of an illegal adoption, either]
Good luck with it.
You're a disgrace to FR.
That’s the short version of this decision.
“It has nothing to do with disagreement, it does have to do with the law and the Constitution - she misrepresents both.”
That is your opinion. It is not illegal to disagree with you in constitutional debate and in cases before courts where there is disagreement on constitutional cases. If so, a lot of people would be disbarred, fined, etc. If BamBam has his way, they would be jailed for constitutional disagreement with him. You are being silly now.
It’s anti-American to want to engage in spirited debate?
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.