[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Federal judge slaps voters in face, energizes patriots Excerpt: Phil Berg's lawsuit to force production of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate is not a political game, it's a constitutional issue. The most cogent narrative, including excerpts from Judge Surrick's decision is found here. To say millions of us are outraged is putting it mildly. Enraged is more appropriate. If one reads the dishonorable Surrick's words, it becomes apparent this judge, if he is the one who actually wrote the decision, thinks we the people are too stupid to understand his outrageous remarks: "…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election." According to this bench warmer, a candidates INELIGIBILITY to run for office doesn't present an injury to voters! We just accept fraud as eligibility! "Theoretical constitutional harm" experienced by we the people doesn't change as the fraud passes from one phase of the election cycle to another! Surrick is lost in purple haze. Typical of these weenie federal judges, when they can't find the guts to do the right thing, they take the cheap way out and try to pass the buck to the other incompetents, Congress: "So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide. "If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint." In other words, we the people are supposed to sit back and allow a candidate who doesn't meet constitutional requirements for eligibility go ahead, run, get elected via massive vote fraud and hope that down the line Congress might decide to pass some law giving we the people some say in OUR government and election process? Surrick's words must have given Arnold Schwarzenegger a nocturnal emission. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
Devvy, baby, our Constitution hasn't meant squat for more that a hundred years. It's time to think of some new tactics.
{{{slap}}}} oh, yeah. that dead thing. ;)
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||