Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
Hit post a little to quickly. I actually misread "Challenge *who is* the President" as "Challenge the President". Still it's close, they got to challenge the power of Congress and the President to hold them without charges. They got access to the courts, so yes, they had standing in the courts but their case did not address the eligibility of President Bush.
That had already been settled in Gore V. Bush. ;-)
As Judge Carter pointed out, winning is often not the objective of many 3rd party candidates. Sometimes just getting enough votes in a few swing states is enough to change the outcome, even though not enough to win even one of those states.
Evidence of what? The COLB is only prima facia (meaning at first impression) evidence of the information on it. Not everthing needed is on it. Plus, it only reflects what is in the state's database, and is still subject to challenge of that information, if there is any evidence or reason to believe that the information is incorrect or the original documents fraudulently filed. If this were a simple case of some person wishing to be recognized as a citizen, say for entry into the US, it would not take much contrary information to get the original documents, or certifed copies thereof, produced by the state which held them.
Even the long form might not be sufficient in an of itself. For example, while the long form shows the birthplace of the parents, it does not show their citizenship at the time the child was born. That might be a key piece of information in proving or disproving a case. If so, other documents would be required to prove what the parents citizenship was at the time of birth.
Oh yeah, that’s it. The mod had a thread about it.
Let’s play a hypothetical. Play along with me on this one.
A President and Vice President are killed. In haste, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court swears in the Speaker of the House as President.
After the swearing in, it is learned that the Chief Justice didn’t ask the age of the Speaker of the House, and just assumed that they were old enough per the Constitution. He just assumed and didn’t know that the new President was NOT qualified due to age.
Now the newly sworn in President CLAIMS that they are old enough, but refuses to release their birth certificate to the public.
Just who has legal authority for review after the Speaker of the House has been sworn in as President? According to this ruling, it isn’t the judicial branch. Because no crime has been committed, the President can’t be impeached, so it isn’t the legislative branch (and because the Speaker of the House is from the majority party, that party controls the House as well). The President is chief executive over the executive branch so they wouldn’t out themselves.
So I ask again, who would have legal authority?
I certainly don’t get it.
Don’t be silly, why would she want 0bama as her client...
It's not really the Constitution that is involved, but rather a series of mostly 20th century interpretations of it that resulted in ever higher barriers to individuals seeking to have the Constution enforced.
I knew there was something about this.. I just couldn’t recall, but I do remember that thread.
1. It’s impossible for us to enforce.
2. We don’t have the time to enforce these requests.
3. We don’t have the software to keep track of these requests.
4. Thick skin helps.
5. Ignore the poster, if you don’t reply, they won’t reply.
-—the mods
That was before the document was anything more than something posted on Scribe. Anyone can post anything there. So I was just checking. Then NS gave me the link to the court site, and you'll notice I dropped it after that.
Remember there was a false post to the opposite effect, that Judge Carter had denied the motion, a few days ago.
That’s fine. This is a rather unusual situation, but whatever.
We will get what we deserve, and that’s all there is to it.
Or a means of judicial tyranny. Take your pick.
So I ask again, who would have legal authority?
***That’s a good hypothetical. SCOTUS has the authority. And they decided to take a pass on this issue when they had several lawsuits they could have chosen from during the pre-inauguration phase. It was their job and they abdicated their responsibility.
So, to extend your hypothetical: What should conservatives do when they have a reasonable suspicion that the current POTUS isn’t even eligible to hold the office, and the SCOTUS abdicated their responsibility to engage on this check/balance system set up by the founders?
In other words, there’s no rule.
So they can use it to endorse and elect RINOs? That's worked real well in the past, NOT.
I totally agree. This is where Kreep and Taitz screwed up. They requested removal as a remedy rather than monetary damages which I suspect Carter might have considered at least for Keyes and Kreep's clients, but only if he was asked, which he apparently wasn't! A narrow case for these three plaintifs asking for only monetary damages of running against an ineligible candidate could still be filed, it would seem.
That does not make him eligible, does it? We have a Constitution too, for now, it determines eligibility not a campaign.
Correct...it’s sort of an honor system. :-)
Clair Wolfe.
It’s Time.
If as so many, including Judge Carter, seem to believe that "swearing in" makes one President, apparently regardless of eligibility, when exactly did The One become President? January 20th, or January 21st? Or since both "swearing ins" were defective per the Constitutional specification of the oath to be sworn, maybe never?
If it was the 21st, who was President from noon on the 20th until the "swearing in" on the 21st?
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.