Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
Got a reference to that? First I've ever heard of any written oath, for the President and VP that is. My oath was done that way. Written and oral, belt and suspenders. I've posted that observation several times, and no one ever brought up any Presidential written oath. I thought there should be one, executed any time after the counting of the electoral votes and before noon on January 20th, so I'd be anxious to see evidence that there really is a written version, presumably on file somewhere.
You know what koo koo - you are a plant. You have only been here since October. We have NOTHING to learn from you. CO
Feeding a t.... is wasting time!!!
It’s YOU that doesn’t have an arguement. YOU cannot explain why this blank slate will NOT reveal a single thing about himself. That speaks volumes alone. You are clearly an Obama supporter and I understand that but your reasoning makes NO sense. WHY would you not be interested in the truth if you care about your country? Because, you drank all the Kool-Aid and now you just parrot the left’s talking points. Good luck with your future. CO
There is a written oath signed shortly before the inauguration.
Can you link or cite where this comes from.
There are a few working on prying the Hawaiian door wide open at this time. Hawaii has some ‘splaning to do!!!
Hi CO!! Thank you and good to hear from you! I’d like to trade a few squatters here in USA - do nothings - for a few Canadians! Come on down.
First, many of these kinds of cases fall to specific eligibility requirements of the candidates themselves. For instance, an opponent may challenge that another candidate hasn't met the residency requirements specified in a state or local law. While signatures on petitions are the most common grounds for these challenges, they aren't the only grounds for challenges on ballot access.
Be that as it may, McCain's "injury" in last years election, or the injury in any other election contest would most likely be based in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, the challenger would argue, "If an eligibility requirement applies to me, it must also equally apply to my opponent." That would easily meet the requirement of specific and unique injury that a plaintiff must meet for a case to be heard.
LOL right now, I think I’ll stay put. We have a Christian Conservative Prime Minister right now and Canada is doing the best it has ever done. I will NEVER forget the 13 years of true RED Liberalism under Chretien and ALL the damage they did. It is still evident in our young folks today. What a terrible thing has happened to your country. CO
Lack of "standing" is lack of a chance to prove your case before a jury. The jury box is the next to last box.
Much more likely would a Speaker who was a Naturalized citizen, but naturalized as a child as part of their parents naturalization. (per 8 USC 1401 for example) That fact could easily get lost in the case of the Member of the House, who need not be a natural born citizen, especially if the child was quite young at the time of naturalization.
Wrong box, the ballot box is the second box, or 3rd from the last.
But of course denying it isn't too helpful either.
I had ‘em switched too.
Thought you meant ballot box.
An interesting take, haven’t thought about that, but one should not be surprise when you see what Glenn Beck has dished up???
Yes - an Orly thread is feeding time for the Obots. Their leader - who promised transparency to his groupies; yet hides who he is. They are still in the state of adoration and just as twisted as he is.
Would that also not equally apply to Keyes or any other candidate on the ballot?
Problem is, there is no requirement, except in Hawaii, for candidates for the general election to certify that they meet the Constitutional requirement in order to appear on the ballot. So, in not doing that, Obama was not treated any differently than McCain or Keyes, who also were not required to certify eligibility, although IIRC, the Republicans did it anyway.
Secondly, which of the causes for impeachment listed above does "not eligible?" come under? It's a not a crime to not be eligible, not even a misdomeanor. It's not Treason to not be eligible, and there have been no formal accusations of Bribery."Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a very broad ground for accusation, including obstruction of justice for Nixon and perjury for Clinton. The other "high crime" which would presumably provide grounds for impeachment of Obama would be some variety of fraud, which would be the appropriate charge if Obama claimed to be eligible to be President, when he in fact was not. Ultimately, though, since the House has the sole ability to impeach, it also has the sole ability to define the grounds for impeachment. The House then, of course, must persuade the Senate to convict.
(From Leo's blog) Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.
Just so. The more different routes we pursue, the better. Those who think that this distracts from more important issues, are, IMHO, mistaken.
Of course we should be concerned about healthcare. But it helps us with healthcare when Obama’s numbers drop, and one of the many things that are making his numbers drop are doubts about his past which the press managed to cover up earlier.
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.