See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case
Source:
obamawaffles.typepad.com
URL Source: http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/oba ... -in-obama-birth-gate-case.html
Published: Nov 14, 2008
Author: obamawaffles
Post Date: 2008-11-14 20:27:13 by randge
Keywords: Keyes, Obama, Birth certificate
Views: 2994
Comments: 120
November 14, 2008 Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama Birth-gate Case You gotta love this . . . while Michelle Obama is dreaming of new patterns for the White House china collection and Barack Obama is busy redesigning the presidential seal, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes—who is black and therefore cannot be dismissed as having a racist agenda—petitioned the Superior Court of California yesterday to require proof of Obama's birth certificate.
In his petition, Dr. Keyes points out that someone wanting to get a California drivers license must provide more proof of citizenship than Sen. Barack Obama has provided in his bid to be the next U.S. President:
Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS [Secretary of State], with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license.
Why should this matter? Keyes explains:
62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a "natural born" citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen.
70. Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
For a PDF download of Dr. Keyes eye-opening and well-written petition, click here.
Poster Comment:
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-36) not displayed.
.
.
.
#37. To: Old Friend, nolu chan (#33)
Perhaps but that doesn't make this particular information wrong. I found the same information in an article written by and for people who are not Obama shills and probably believe, like you and I, that he is not a citizen. Written by Jim Capo The North Carolina State Board of Elections has been responding to inquiries. 1) NC SBOE confirms they accept, without question names for the presidential ballot as submitted to them by the state certified parties. DEM, GOP and Libertarian for 2008. 2) As the state DEM party submits names they are told to by the DNC, it appears there no requirement that a candidate legally certify to a private political party that they are eligible to be president. 3) Because it is the Electoral College that elects our POTUS, voters nor a BOE have standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of a POTUS. 4) Outside of driving a novel case all the way up to the Supreme Court, the convening of the electoral college to count votes is the step where a formal challenge can occur…and is required to be resolved. 5) If I understand the US code correctly (go to section 15), to challenge the electoral votes as they are being counted in Congress, requires a minimum of one House member and one Senate member from the same state, to submit in writing, during the time of counting, the reason for their challenge to the votes from a particular state being counted. (States ballots are counted in alphabetical order) The challenge must be resolved before the counting of elector votes is allowed to continue. There were calls to contest the election results in the Electoral College in 2000 and 2004. There may be again for 2008. sigh. I tried. I can't make you listen.
I am a stubborn person. Look I like you. I think you are on the right side. Here is the point. Our government isn't living up to its obligations under the constitution. This not having standing is just bullshit talk by lawyer judges so they can dismiss cases unethically. There is nothing in the constitution that defines this process. But it does say the president has to be a natural born citizen. We the people are supposed to be the owners and they our servants. Now why isn't the servant answering the master?
Another way to look at is like this. THEY DON"T HAVE STANDING. They constantly lie steal and cheat. They are dishonorable and therefore they have no standing. There take that. :)
Do what I did, Bozo him. Some people have nothing to offer but grief.
Chan has been pimping for Obama for quite a while. He is like his calling in life.
Obama citizenship and the Constitution
Wednesday, 29 October 2008 12:33 Update - November 3rd am:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#38. To: Old Friend (#36)
Nothing personal but you sound like a parrot who listens to the government and their lawyerspeak. Reject it. We are citizens we are mentioned in the constitution. The constitution requires a native born leader. Quit thinking like a slave.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#39. To: farmfriend (#38)
sigh. I tried. I can't make you listen.
#40. To: farmfriend (#38)
#41. To: farmfriend (#38)
 | Teaching Others In The ONLY Way They EVER Learn! |
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#31)
Yes. They're both minor demons still under the instruction and mentoring of "Screwtape." (CS Lewis) And that IS exactly what they look like.
Have you taken a real close look at bHO? Do you have the same gnawing feeling that something is terribly wrong? Bush had the goofy expressions and this guy has a grin that just goes straight thru me. He makes my skin crawl.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx 
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#43. To: Elliott Jackalope (#41)
This is true and there are those who would say I'm one of them. I just have this thing against bozo.
Do what I did, Bozo him. Some people have nothing to offer but grief.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#44. To: Old Friend (#39)
Well at least we can agree on something. Except the part about you being stubborn. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement.
I am a stubborn person. Look I like you. I think you are on the right side.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#45. To: farmfriend (#43) (Edited)
Agreed. I try my best to not use it, and have rarely gotten pushed so far as to actually bozo people, but enough is enough. Old Friend is only here to agitate and annoy people, and I've reached my limit with him, so it was time to bozo him. Now I don't have to read his inane insults any longer. He's actually the first person I've felt the need to have to bozo in over a year now. If history is any indication, he won't be long for this forum at this point. People who push me so far that I end up putting them on bozo usually find they've worn out their welcome not long after. Not that I have anything to do with that, just seems to be a pattern I've observed.
This is true and there are those who would say I'm one of them. I just have this thing against bozo.
| Teaching Others In The ONLY Way They EVER Learn! |
#46. To: Elliott Jackalope (#45)
I can see that. I won't bet against you. I think I did put someone on bozo once but that was back on Clown Posse and it was me they got rid of.
People who push me so far that I end up putting them on bozo usually find they've worn out their welcome not long after. Not that I have anything to do with that, just seems to be a pattern I've observed.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#47. To: Old Friend (#39)
Will you stop and read........we, the citizens DO NOT ELECT THE PRESIDENT! That is the job and function of the Electoral College. You have read about that, haven't you? Don't go screaming for the Constitution, and then refuse to abide by it.........that makes you look foolish.
#48. To: farmfriend, interested parties (#37)
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. An odd thing occurred in the evolution of this great experiment that we continue to call freedom here in America. An agrarian society became industrialized and ultimately commercial in nature. Nothing, including the war of Federal Aggression (AKA War Between the States) has impacted the fundamental make up of the country more than the institution of the Federal Reserve Banking System. Trying to understand the alchemy between this "beast system" and the circumvention of America's basic laws concerning rights is difficult for the learned and near impossible for the unlearned. Even those trained in the law have difficulty comprehending how a monetary system can usurp the very principles upon which a nation is founded and is supposed to operate, especially when no change is admitted to by those exercising power. To make a long story short, those responsible for morphing America from a social atmosphere inclined towards contentment based upon hard work and the satisfaction derived from building ones own independent and self-sufficient government called a family into this commercially driven one where no one even knows their next door neighbor, are MONEYCHANGERS. 2000 years ago, as legend has it, a man/God, named Jesus, identified this problematic concept and stated publicly "Your laws have made my Father's laws of NO EFFECT". [Let me say that this post isn't intended to spark a religious debate]. The relevant point here is to note that the Bankers Laws (commercial law) have made our founding father's laws of NO EFFECT. The legal system is operated with precision at the highest levels, and complete incompetence at the introductory levels. The basic concept is that the lower courts are mandated to find in favor of the "STATE" and the ill effected can appeal that decision. The Appellate Process is a maze of deception and confusion meant to dissuade the appellant from completing the appeals process, and whenever the appeal reaches the highest court the opinions are written in double speak so as to keep the confused in that state of mind while affording the more observant an opportunity to re-evaluate their belief system. This system is Babylonian in nature, has operated publicly for 6000 years, is generally only understood by its operators and beneficiaries to the detriment of the greater portion of society, YOU and ME. Simply put, we agree to forfeit our (individual) RIGHTS in order to join a social compact (socialism) that we determine is beneficial to us personally. This is completely voluntary even though at times it appears mandatory. The very moment that our monetary system deviated from the Article 1 section 10 mandated Gold and Silver Coinage, a new social compact was initiated that operated concurrently with the former. The point to be grasped here is that the law of the land (common-law) based upon real earthly values like gold and silver was then in competition with Contract Law (Fiction) wherein those parties to contracts could create any illusion that both sides were willing to accept. The reason Phil Berg or any "voter" has no standing to address the CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE regarding the qualifications of Barack Obama is that the mere fact that one has a voter registration card implies that they have opted out of the common-law side of governance and entered the (socialist) commercial corporate side and these two concurrently operating systems ARE BLIND TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE OTHER. The CONstitution cannot be in operation when the currency utilized to "do business" is anything other than Gold or Silver based. This concept is known as "Choice of Law". Historically speaking, international merchants have always used CONTRACT LAW between each other because their national laws were usually diverse. In order to do "business" they created a universe of their own wherein they could agree to whichever laws were agreeable to the transactions intended. For example, maybe a guy from France and a guy from America wanted to trade with each other. These traders could determine that payment would be made in American currency while any dispute would be determined in a French Court. This simplified example is a CONTRACTUAL agreement that determines the "CHOICE OF LAW". Over time it became known as Maritime Law, Marine Admiralty, Law Merchant etc., but the important thing to grasp is that the contract supercedes any CONSTITUTION, and in America the mode of doing business, ie., using fiat currency, having a SSN etc., creates the PRESUMPTION of CONTRACT and COMMERCIAL LAW prevails. The U.S. is a corporate body, operating upon fiat (fictional) currency, in violation of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW but absolutely "legal" contract commercial law, and the corporation can decide to do whatever it chooses the Constitution notwithstanding. This conversion from one form of law to another has been done very subtly, so much so that even Phil Berg, an ex-asst. atty general, has not grasped it. This begs the question then how could the average schlepper get it ? And even when one does begin to understand it he/she must confront their own sanity because the simple honesty shared by the greater part of society could never have devised such an enslaving treachery. And while this screed wasn't intended to cause a religious tantrum it should be noted that the God of the Bible offered the best advice to deny power to this evil fictional system. So many of the admonitions that the Biblical scriptures contain eliminate the opportunity for the fraud necessary to conduct the Babylonian Legal System AKA "the beast system". One such admonition is to never swear an oath. Let your yea be yea, and your no be no, but swear no oath. Every time you are asked to swear an oath to something you can bet you are deciding the "CHOICE OF LAW" and getting ready to be screwed by Uncle Sambo. NOTE: Federal means "federal" not national. So, when the term "federal government" is used what is being described is not the national government as most think it is, but instead a creation of the "federal" (contracting party) reserve system.
There were calls to contest the election results in the Electoral College in 2000 and 2004. There may be again for 2008.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#49. To: rowdee (#47)
Don't ever think you have access to the protections offered under the Constitution when you have decided to opt out of the jurisdiction where it exists, and have joined a socialist democracy that determines whether or not those same protections are available to you ... AS A PRIVILEGE, not a right. There is a point where an understanding occurs that's like breaking the sound barrier or something. It's almost like discovering a different dimension. I think it takes more of an obsessive determination to get there than most (very normal) people possess. I admit that getting there is an exercise in insanity and a journey that no one should have to take because it is a detour from normalcy like entering a "worm hole" into hell. I'm not being critical of anyone. I am simply stating that our perceptions are the end result of the things we experience, study, and ponder. Our comprehension abilities in these areas are different, greater or lesser with many factors to consider, yet affecting us all. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've formed beliefs over my lifetime that have been shattered by facts, experience and a more complete awareness. The Constitution has no bearing on the "federal" government, but the people are allowed to be convinced of its authority if that floats their boat. Some people are incapable of confronting the notion that their entire life they have been fooled by smooth talking criminals. One sentence from a case decided in California, and later removed from Westlaw (called depublication) wherein the court stated this: "We are unable to exalt dry formalism above an exhausted fisc" ... what do this mean Kimmosabe ? We (the court) are unable to uphold the Constitution when it depletes the State Treasury. [It's all about the money AND any deviation from the Constitutional form of money is an immediate departure from Constitutional Law.]
Don't go screaming for the Constitution, and then refuse to abide by it.........that makes you look foolish.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#50. To: rowdee (#47)
American citizens have standing. If they don't we can just stop paying taxes and kill them all. If you don't get it you don't get the declaration of independence and the founding of this nation.
#51. To: noone222 (#48)
Yes Yes Yes. You get it.
#52. To: Elliott Jackalope (#45)
You are an Obama supporter here. That makes you the minority. Feel free to close your eyes and say there is no place like Oz. But when you take out your ear plugs and your black painted sunglasses I will still be here ridiculing Obama and his worshippes. If you are off the kool aid at that time I will cut you some slack.
#53. To: rowdee (#47)
Rowdee show me me in the constitution where it says the Amerian people don't have standing. Hint it aint there. You have been fooled by usurptions and crooked judges.
#54. To: Old Friend (#51)
Thanks.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#55. To: noone222 (#54)
In the first chapter of his book Dreams From My Father, describing his origins, Obama wrote about finding a local Hawaiian newspaper article about his Kenyan father: "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school." So where is that birth certificate???? The dog couldn't had eaten it, because he never had a dog. Marguerite posted on 2008-11-15 08:19:39 ET Reply Trace
#56. To: Old Friend (#53)
In your dreams, OF..... You need to be an affected party in order to have standing in the courts. Because senators and representatives make up the electoral college, they have standing. When the sheeple vote, they are only expressing their preference for prez and vice prez......it was the electoral college that did the actual casting of votes. What do you think the people were boohooiing about with gore/bush?...the 'popular' vote if you will, and the demand to do away with the electoral college.
#57. To: randge (#0)
If the MSM does finally take notice, it is only because it is part of the planned show. I am 99.9% sure he is not a natural born citizen but I would rather he be allowed to serve than face the inevitable riots that would occur if he were disqualified from serving as president. Sadly, most blacks would never understand.
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing. Maybe the MSM will get up off their duffs and take notice.
God is always good!
#58. To: rowdee (#56)
You are dead wrong. The people are who they serve. We have standing they do not. They are merely representatives. I don't care about the electoral collete or blah blah blah. If Obama isn' t born here he isn't eligible. PERIOD end of story. Come on Rowdee you are smarter then this.
#59. To: RickyJ (#57)
I would rather have the riots. I am ready and able to respond. Lets quit sitting in the frying pan. Lets make a stand. If there is going to be a civil war lets get it started before I get to old.
but I would rather he be allowed to serve than face the inevitable riots
#60. To: rowdee (#56)
Hey Rowdee did our representatives have "standing" to dump the articles of confederation and adopt the constitution. NO they didn't but they did anyway. The constitution is just a piece of paper that they don't follow anymore. I wish we could return to it it had some good stuff in it. But it isn't a perfect document. It is better then anything our rulers could come up with now but the Bible it is not.
#61. To: Rowdee (#53)
Your answer didn't have one mention from the constitution. Why is that? Couldn't you find anywhere in the constitution where it said we the people don't have standing?
Rowdee show me me in the constitution where it says the Amerian people don't have standing.
#62. To: IndieTX (#42)
Hey IndieTX, you've seen the look I'm talking about; a real wise ass, 'dirty' look.
And that IS exactly what they look like.
#63. To: RickyJ (#57)
If the MSM does finally take notice, it is only because it is part of the planned show. Sure. 10-4. I am 99.9% sure he is not a natural born citizen but I would rather he be allowed to serve than face the inevitable riots that would occur if he were disqualified from serving as president. Think about what you're saying. You prefer using the Constitution as a roll of Charmin to an episode of cathartic and highly instructive insurrection on the part of the politically immature. Sadly, most blacks would never understand. Tough shit.
#64. To: Old Friend (#61)
Look, numbnutz.........I am an American citizen by birth. Regardless of how much you or I or anyone else would wish it, I cannot sue in the name of the United States of America; I cannot sue for you; you cannot sue for me. One needs to have 'standing' to go before the courts. You had nothing to do with the electoral college process. I had nothing to do with the elecyoral college process. So, if we are out of the loop, exactly where do we get the standing in such a particular action? I can say that so and so stole money from the state when they worked there because he/she admitted it; however, I cannot take them to court to force them to repay the state--the state has to be the taker to courter! {and yes, I know what a plaintiff and a defendant are} There could be (notice 'could') instances where, and I'm thinking of power of attorney, people could sue in the name of others, or some such. I'm not an attorney, nor a judge, nor with legal training, which could perhaps clear some of this up.
#65. To: Old Friend (#61)
Furthermore, numbnutz........the Constitution doesn't contain the day to day operational rules and regulations for each branch of the government. I would presume that the Congress, following Article l, Section 8, Paragraph 18, established that the Judicial Branch would be responsible for establishing its rules and regulations for how the courts are to operate. I do know that judges (probably at various levels) have committee(s) that meet, discuss, and suggest various ways to streamline or make more efficient the process of the judiciary system. And gosh, I know that because my daughter works in one of the court systems, and one of the judges she worked with was a member of just such a committee that met at the national level.
#66. To: rowdee, Old Friend (#64)
We may not have standing, actually we might but it could take some creative thinking.. Anyhoo, if Alan Keyes was on the California ballot then he indeed has standing.
#67. To: Lady X (#66)
I think any citizen of the USA has standing here. Ignoring the Constitution of the USA affects every citizen. We can't sit idly by and let the only document protecting our basic rights to be so easily ignored. No way! Every citizen of the USA has standing here! The judge didn't want the riots on his hands, that's why he punted this to a higher court.
God is always good!
#68. To: RickyJ (#67)
I see your point but what I am saying is that a judge will not hear us, however in Keyes situation given that he was a candidate on a state ballot, a judge would be obligated to hear it..
#69. To: Old Friend (#59)
And while we still have the numbers to compete !
Lets make a stand. If there is going to be a civil war lets get it started before I get to old.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#70. To: Old Friend, farmfriend (#32)
Among other things, standing has to do with the plaintiff's ability to show his particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, as distinct from a large group of others similarly situated. Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) [excerpt] III. Analysis As previously mentioned, the defendants argue that Hollander lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit. “Article III of the Constitution limits the ‘judicial power’ of the United States to the resolution of ‘cases' and ‘controversies'.... As an incident to the elaboration of this bedrock requirement, [the Supreme] Court has always required that a litigant have ‘standing’ to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). So-called “Article III standing” has three requirements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) that injury bears a causal connection to the defendant's challenged conduct, and (3) a favorable judicial decision will likely provide the plaintiff with redress from that injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The party bringing the claim-Hollander here-bears the burden to show his or her standing to bring it. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004). Based on these principles, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130. These holdings include Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974), where the Court ruled that a group of citizens lacked standing to litigate the eligibility, under the Incompatibility Clause,FN5 of members of Congress to serve simultaneously in the military reserves. Bullshit. "we the people" have standing per constitution.
forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1045201
#71. To: nolu_chan (#70) (Edited)
So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ??? Nonsense ! The opinion reeks. Of course I don't think the Constitution has anything to do with it !
the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#72. To: noone222 (#71)
I have to agree.. When the simple wording of the Constitution, the highest law in the land, which applies to all of us and is our birthright, doesn't give us "standing" then something is wrong.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
#73. To: Old Friend (#22)
[OF] Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen. He was on the ballot in California. He satisfied all requirements asked of him by California authorities pursuant to California law. The election in California is governed by California law. The election is to select delegates to cast electoral college votes for the state of California. If a state chose to do so, it could have its legislature select the delegates and do away with the popular voting altogether, a practice not uncommon in the early days of the constitutional republic. Show the California state law that was not complied with. If they choose to accept the attestation of candidates, that is California's prerogative. Votes are not cast for the candidates until the delegates to the electoral process do so. Those votes can be challenged when they are counted in congress. The requirements of the Constitution apply to holding the office of president, not to appearing on a state ballot. There is no impediment to a candidate being 34 years old on election day if he is 35 on inauguration day. Your imaginary ballot access requirements only apply in your imaginary world.
[nc] Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California.
#74. To: All (#72)
PS: I guess a better way to put it is: Which of us ISN'T harmed when the Constitution is subverted? It's our highest law.. It governs all of us, from the poorest among us to the one guy we give the power to destroy the earth. Which American doesn't have an equal stake in this?
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
#75. To: noone222 (#71)
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition "Standing to sue" means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636. Standing is a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court; it is the right to take the initial step that frames legal issues for ultimate adjudication by court or jury. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, Okl., 653 P.2d 1230, 1232. The requirement of "standing" is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Guidry v. Roberts, La.App., 331 So.2d 44, 50. Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, D.C.Pa., 358 F.Supp. 684, 695. The doctrine emanates from the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution and from general principles of judicial administration, and seeks to insure that the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness. Campaign Clean Water, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, D.C.Va., 361 F.Supp. 689, 692. Standing is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by governmental action complained of, and focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. v. U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., D.C.N.C, 431 F.Supp. 203, 218. Essence of standing is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it. Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2nd 244, 247. So, the court opines that if one individual is screwed royally he has standing to sue, but when the entire country gets screwed no one has standing ???
Standing to sue doctrine.
#76. To: nolu_chan (#75)
It's like determining reasonableness only in this case the sufficiency of the injury is determined by "the court" ... each citizen should have standing to sue, but maybe since the election process has deteriorated so much that the "injury" is not cognizable.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#77. To: farmfriend (#37)
shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives I do not believe they must be from the same state. It can be any senator and any representative. While they must state what their objection is, there would appear to be no restriction on what the objection may be. If the objection is upheld, the vote is rejected. As it would be a political question in the legislature, it would not be subject to any judicial challenge.
If I understand the US code correctly (go to section 15), to challenge the electoral votes as they are being counted in Congress, requires a minimum of one House member and one Senate member from the same state, to submit in writing, during the time of counting, the reason for their challenge to the votes from a particular state being counted.
.
.
.
Comments (78 - 120) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest