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: 2893
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
#1. To: randge (#0)
wow. good find. thanks for posting, randge, and it's nice to see you here again.
There are no warlike people--just warlike leaders. – Ralph Bunche
Seems much ado about nothing. If Obama was born in Kenya or whereever, he can order the invasion of that country, take it over, making it a territory or state of America, launch a massive infrastructure and standard of living upgrade of it, thereby generating enough economic activity in the USA to stop the plunge into an economic depression. If Bush can invade Afghanistan and Iraq to enhance Israel's security interests, no reason for Obama not to do the same but in the interests of Americans, including himself.
wow. good find. thanks for posting, randge, and it's nice to see you here again. I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primaries and maybe the 96 one too. It is good to see that he is useful for something.
Yeah! Get'em Alan, good boy. Bring Daddy his slippers...
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
heheheheh... If the electors can not cast a vote without a ruling from the court, then what? Biden and Hillary?
Barrack Obama is the new pepsi machine/sneaker with glow in the dark pink orange and purple plastic knobs. Same metal can of sugar water.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Little ado to you, then. Fine. Just fine. I hope that you're the first to "volunteer" for 100 hours of community service in th Red Usurper's Health Service/Clean Energy/Veterans Corps. For my part, I want all these vultures off my back. That includes Bush as well as the new boy.
Same metal can of sugar water. From a teacher in the Nashville area We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream." We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide. Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth he offers ice cream and sixty percent of the people react like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other forty percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.
If they pass this community service bullshit. Im going to volunteer and loot the place.
You know what they say about the devil you know.
Very funny! The operant word here is knob.
I do I do. The last televised spectacle of this was a hoot. This is going to look like the Korean parliament.
Right. Colored strings don't work with puppets unless it's a mock-up of a laser light show.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Aren't you and Sandy Duncan neglecting your clown ministry?
Clown?
There's nothing for ringside action like the Korean parliament. Those boys can land a punch. Our legislators are much too soft. Although, now that they are a full bore governing party, the Dems are going to have to enforce party discipline in the House. With any luck, there may be some fireworks. I'd like to see Chucky Schumer on Barney Frank or (oh-ho) John Murtha on Harry Reid. What are your favorite matchups, BTW?
No silly. Dak mentioned puppets, so my mind wondered. Back to the thread. Good for Keyes. Something reeks about Obama and it's more than his odor.
That's ok. I'm really just testing new taglines.
Our legislators are much too soft. Although, now that they are a full bore governing party, the Dems are going to have to enforce party discipline in the House. With any luck, there may be some fireworks. I'd like to see Chucky Schumer on Barney Frank or (oh-ho) John Murtha on Harry Reid. What are your favorite matchups, BTW? I would LOVE to see actual democracy in action. I would settle for the attention span of the House of Commons. A pulse a pulse! I can't wait for the dem factions to divide amongst themselves for dominate power. The bird they have created is a genetic freak incapable of flying. Anyway... Smackdown choices? Oh, the thought is sweet. I'll have to think about it. It'll have Al Franken in it if he manages to steal MN.
May the Eye of Ishtar enable you to see life from the crusted over eyes of a crocodile. Have some coffee, relax guy!
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California. Keyes cites no state law to which the California secretary of state has failed compliance. While Keyes asserts that, "[i]it was incumbent on the candidates to present the necessary documentation confirming his citizenship," it is entirely up to each state to establish laws and regulations establishing what the state officials may accept as adequate evidence of citizenship. The court is unlikely to require, based on the law, that the secretary do more than the law requires. In any case, if he desired or was required to supply acceptable proof, a COLB from Hawaii with a raised seal and signature would suffice. Proof that he was born in Hawaii after it was a state satisfies every requirement for natural born status. The COLB would be an official state record and must be accepted in the other 49 states pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Contrary to this claim, all of the treaties, laws, and executive orders signed by someone later shown to be ineligible for the office would remain valid. Once inaugurated, he could not be removed from office by any means other than impeachment. Andy Martin filed a Petition in the Hawaii Supreme Court which was denied on October 22, 2008. The Hawaii Supreme Court found that pursuant to state law they would not require any personal documentation about Obama to be released. Martin has another action started and has posted Obama court hearing to focus on actions of Hawai'i officials, need for disclosure Obama author Andy Martin heads for historic court hearing in Honolulu. Martin will arrive in Honolulu Friday evening to prepare for a historic court hearing in the Circuit Court Tuesday, November 18th at 10:30 A.M. "Some people want to run up the white flag and kiss Obama's fanny," Martin says. "In the words of John Paul Jones, 'I've just begin to fight.' Unless and until Obama releases records about his past—his birth certificate, college files and similar information—he lacks legitimacy. I do not think any American owes loyalty to Obama's radical socialist revolution, which is bent on destroying our way of life. Why will Barack Obama not release his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate?" There would seem to be no legal reason to justify ordering the state of Hawaii to produce anything other than a COLB such as that shown by Obama. About the only challenge might be that the state did not really issue it. There is no legal requirement that an individual produce the original of a state record. The original document is the property of the state and is exempt from the best evidence rule. A certified copy of the record, or of an entry within the record, meets federal approval. From the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902. Self-authentication Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution. (2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine. (3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification. (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. [...] The is from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 44. Proving an Official Record (a) Means of Proving. (1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States: (A) an official publication of the record; or (B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal: (i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept. The procedure set up to make challenges is as a political matter in the Federal legislature when the electoral college ballots are opened and counted. UNITED STATES CODE The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended): TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies [...] Counting electoral votes in congress § 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen. I understand your sympathy for Obama not being born here yourself. But the constitution requires our president to be a natural born citizen. If Obama has a birth certificate he could very easily clear this up. My bet is that he is not natural born or at the least became a citizen of Indonesia. The upon turning 18 years of age he could have reclaimed his citizenship but he neglected to do that. I also think you voted for Obama. Come on admit it.
Thanks for posting that. I saw that video selection on youtube but just watched it when you posted it. Thanks again.
YW. Only six missing pieces.. eh? This part: RACE: Africa. ummm.
Fake.
He was a candidate on the California ballot. Maybe that's why he brought the challenge in CA.
thank you. Excellent post though I haven't read it all yet. I'm going to pass this on to some interested people.
I also think you voted for Obama. Come on admit it. I think you completely missed the point of the post. All these law suits will come to naught and it is the wrong way to handle it. What it takes is someone from the House and a Senator from the same state to contest the Electoral College vote. It is the only Constitutional way.
If 44 was legal, he would have proved it by now. Keep it simple.
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.
Bullshit. "we the people" have standing per constitution. We shouldn't have to wait around for someone from house or senate to make a fuss. Show me in the constitution where it says that is the remedy. SOMEONE NOT BORN HERE IS NOT ELIGIBLE PERIOD. If he was born here then that is fine he can be president and I wish him well.
Chan has been pimping for Obama for quite a while. He is like his calling in life.
No we don't. We don't elect the President, therefore we don't have standing.
Bullshit I aint no stinking slave. 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.
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.
Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama
#2. To: randge (#0)
#3. To: christine (#1)
Allen Keyes Files Lawsuit in Obama
#4. To: Old Friend (#3)
I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primaries and maybe the 96 one too. It is good to see that he is useful for something.
#5. To: randge (#0)
The plaintiff as a candidate as well as his co-plaintiffs as candidates and candidate electors have standing.
#6. To: OliviaFNewton (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: Tatarewicz (#2)
Seems much ado about nothing.
#8. To: Dakmar (#6)
Barrack Obama is the new pepsi machine/sneaker with glow in the dark pink orange and purple plastic knobs.
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.
#9. To: randge (#7)
#10. To: OliviaFNewton (#5)
If the electors can not cast a vote without a ruling from the court, then what? Biden and Hillary?
#11. To: Dakmar (#6)
#12. To: randge (#10)
You know what they say about the devil you know.
#13. To: randge (#11)
The operant word here is knob.
#14. To: Dakmar (#6)
#15. To: Jethro Tull (#14)
Aren't you and Sandy Duncan neglecting your clown ministry?
#16. To: OliviaFNewton (#12)
#17. To: Old Friend (#15)
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#17)
#19. To: randge (#16)
There's nothing for ringside action like the Korean parliament. Those boys can land a punch.
#20. To: Jethro Tull (#14)
Aren't you and Sandy Duncan neglecting your clown ministry?
#21. To: randge (#0)
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule902
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule44.htm
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#law
#22. To: nolu_chan (#21)
Obama has evidently satisfied all requirements to be on the ballot in California.
#23. To: Old Friend (#22)
#24. To: OliviaFNewton (#23)
#25. To: Old Friend (#24)
Thanks for posting that. I saw that video selection on youtube but just watched it when you posted it. Thanks again.
#26. To: nolu_chan (#21)
#27. To: Old Friend, rotara, lodwick, Original_Intent (#3)
I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primaries and maybe the 96 one too. It is good to see that he is useful for something.
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
#28. To: nolu_chan, rotara, Original_Intent, lodwick (#21)
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
#29. To: Old Friend (#22)
Oh really. Show me where he proved he was a citizen. I understand your sympathy for Obama not being born here yourself. But the constitution requires our president to be a natural born citizen. If Obama has a birth certificate he could very easily clear this up. My bet is that he is not natural born or at the least became a citizen of Indonesia. The upon turning 18 years of age he could have reclaimed his citizenship but he neglected to do that.
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
#30. To: farmfriend..all (#27)
#31. To: lodwick (#30)
#32. To: farmfriend (#29)
All these law suits will come to naught and it is the wrong way to handle it. What it takes is someone from the House and a Senator from the same state to contest the Electoral College vote. It is the only Constitutional way.
#33. To: farmfriend, nolu chan (#29)
#34. To: Jethro Tull (#31)
#35. To: Old Friend (#32)
Bullshit. "we the people" have standing per constitution.
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
#36. To: farmfriend (#35)
No we don't. We don't elect the President, therefore we don't have standing.
#37. To: Old Friend, nolu chan (#33)
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.
#78. To: nolu_chan (#75)
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue. See Update on the constitutional crisis: Obama can't prove he is a natural born citizen
There are no warlike people--just warlike leaders. – Ralph Bunche
#79. To: noone222 (#76)
Nope... it is not the sufficiency of the injury or the severity of injury, but the particularity of injury and the particularity of interest in the sought after court remedy. It is finding that there is no case or controversy properly framed before the court for adjudication. Berg and others could not get their case heard in Federal court.
It's like determining reasonableness only in this case the sufficiency of the injury is determined by "the court"
#80. To: nolu_chan (#73)
Did you vote for Obama? Or are you to ashamed to admit it?
#81. To: nolu_chan (#79)
I notice you don't quote the constitution. Just usurpers opinions. You think you know it all but in your arrogance you became a fool.
#82. To: Old Friend (#80)
He's making a legal argument... Either rebut with a legal argument or mitigate it with another argument of substance.. Don't just wave your ass at him..
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
#83. To: Jhoffa_ (#82) (Edited)
NO he is spreading usurper laywer doubletalk bullshit. They guy is in the can for Obama. Probably works on its campaign. I agree with what you said above. 74 72 Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.
He's making a legal argument...
#84. To: Old Friend (#83) (Edited)
Legally, I'm sure he's correct.. Morally? Well, that's another question entirely. Hit him there.. Don't taunt. It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
#85. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)
Well, that's another question entirely. Agreed Chan is immoral..............Ok you didn't say that I did.
Morally?
#86. To: Jhoffa_ (#84)
No it makes Chan look like a statist Obama ass kisser. Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing. Sure the courts shouldn't hear a million cases if a million are brought. Answering the question one time for one case would suffice.
It makes you look like you have, um.. diminished capacity.
#87. To: Old Friend (#85)
Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated. I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense.
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
#88. To: Jhoffa_ (#87)
I am sure he's correct.. In a legal sense. Here is how the law works in reality imo. The supreme court is usually not anonymous. Why is that you think? If they were reading the law and interpreting it truthfully all the decisions should be anonymous shouldn't they? You get two people up there (lawyer scum) and they blab their mouth. Then the judge makes a decision based on their opinions and beliefs of right and wrong. Then they come up with some fancy words and rationalize it and say it is the law or some precedent or something. Well 3 other of the judges may have disagreed. So what it amounts to is a vote. Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".
Chan is more than credentialed, he's educated.
#89. To: Old Friend (#88)
Chan- It's rote-speak. Experience. U- Unsure how you work.. Me?- I deal in concepts..
Chan is just quoting precedent..
~ Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
#90. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)
Right and wrong.
U- Unsure how you work..
#91. To: christine (#78)
Continuing efforts in court will be a waste of time. To prove Obama is a citizen only requires a showing that he was born in Hawaii. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii. Anyone wanting to invest $5 can submit that information to the authorities in Hawaii and get a letter of verification that the information is correct (or not) as on file. Letters of Verification Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request. Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies. The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter. Only the information provided is verified, but that is more than ample to prove natural born citizenship, or lack thereof. Anyone wanting additional personal information from some "vault" record will have to get it from the state of Hawaii. They have the original official record. Nobody else does. There is no other source to obtain it from. Andy Martin tried. He had standing there to try to obtain the information but the court found its release would be contrary to state law. Suits brought in state court against the state officials will be tossed, possibly for being untimely after election day. Berg certainly had no chance to obtain the documents in discovery as he attempted. You can only demand copies of documents actually in the possession of the person they are demanded from. What he asked for is in the possession of the state of Hawaii. A court cannot very well order Obama to produce documentation he does not have. A court will not demand that the state official now demand information that relevant state law did not require for ballot access in the first place. A federal suit brought by an individual will be dismissed for lack of standing. There is no federal official invested with any relevant oversight authority. If there is to be a challenge to demand documentation from Obama, it would appear that it will have to be in the Congress.
Devvy Kidd in her most recent commentary enumerates the continuing effort of many on different fronts to expose the truth on this birth certificate issue.
hawaii.gov/health/vital-r...ecords/vital_records.html
#92. To: nolu_chan (#91)
Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?
. The copy of the COLB posted online purports to show that he was born in Hawaii.
#93. To: Old Friend (#88)
You are, of course, entitled to claim your own system of law without precedent. The American system, derived from the British system, cannot function without precedent. Absent recognition of precedent, the system would result in chaos with no predictability whatever. The alternative is the "code civil" as in Latin countries or the state of Louisiana which retains the Napoleanic code system. There is always your third alternative -- just invent your own body of laws and a legal system to go with it.
Chan is just quoting precedent (which the constitution doesn't recognize, it recognizes itself as supreme) that he and others are trying to claim is the "law".
#94. To: Old Friend (#92)
I surely know that you are a raving fucking lunatic. Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL. And why is the reference number blocked out?
#95. To: Old Friend (#86) (Edited)
The Constitution required the establishment of the Supreme Court and vested it with the judicial power of the United States. If they had only foreseen the coming of Old Friend, I am sure they would have vested the power in you, and let you impose your peculiar interpretations of the Constitution unilaterally upon the rest of the country. Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ... Chan quoted decisions by courts. They are inferior to the constitution. We all have a stake and standing.
Article III
#96. To: nolu_chan (#94)
In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?
#97. To: nolu_chan (#95)
Can you boil it down for us, NC? Thanks much.
#98. To: Old Friend (#92)
Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain. The one produced for him has no seal and was verified by a railroad company employee as coming from the files of the railroad company. It shows him being born in Colon, Panama which is not the base and is not the Canal Zone. Do seals and signatures count with McCain? Lol...You obama people never give up. You surely know that it has NO FUCKING SEAL.
#99. To: lodwick (#97)
The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court as the ultimate authority for interpreting the Constitution. Our system of law is derived from the British system or Common Law system (not to be confused with the body of common law). Britain has no constitution and the court evolved over time and a system of law evolved based on following precedent. Lower courts must rule in accordance with the decisions of higher courts. Precedent does not bind parallel courts -- a ruling in the 9th Circuit does not form binding precedent for the 3rd Circuit. The Supreme Court is never bound by precedent because there is no higher court. It may reverse its own prior decisions but does so very infrequently. Take precedent out of the system and you would not be able to predict if an act of yours, or your business, would cause a court to hold you liable until after the court ruled in your individual case. Each legal contention would have to be entirely litigated anew in each new case, without reference to preceding judicial rulings on the same set of legal facts, and with the lower courts empowered to rule contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court.
Can you boil it down for us, NC?
#100. To: Old Friend (#83) (Edited)
McCain was not born here. The Constitution does not say one has to be born here to be President.
You have to be born here to be eligible to be president. NO lawyer twisting of words like Chan is known for can change that fact.
#101. To: bluegrass (#96)
As far as I know, the available information does not address which hospital Obama was born in, if any. As long as Hawaii certifies he was born in Hawaii, legal challenges to his citizenship are not likely to succeed. The information may be in more detailed records held by the state, but that information is not required to prove natural born status. Congress is empowered to challenge electoral votes. Upon a challenge, the houses act separately. It would appear either could reject ballots for whatever reason it deems sufficient. For years, John McCain claimed birth on a military base in Panama. The bc shown in 2008 indicates he was born in Colon, Panama and not on base or in the Canal Zone. If he was born on the base in 1936, the botched up law of the time would seriously question his natural born status. If he was born in Colon, Panama then his natural born status would seem clearly established. The Federal court would not consider the matter of McCain's birth any more than it will consider the matter of Obama's birth. Government officials are not going there and individuals have little or no hope of success.
In Which Hospital Was Obama Born?
#102. To: nolu_chan (#101)
McCain was "declared" a natural born citizen by the Senate in May. The McLame campaign never hit Obama on citizenship because they didn't want it brought up either. Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background.
#103. To: nolu_chan (#79)
I know that you and I see things somewhat differently regarding jurisdictional issues and now "standing". I think that Berg lacks standing because of his being a member in good standing of the socialist democracy rather than the Constitutional Republic. I also think this matter would have to be heard in an Article III court, not a "federal" District Court. I believe that Washington D.C. is the (singular) federal STATE, and that the so- called STATES (AZ, AK, IN, IL, TX, CA, etc., are like counties within that STATE. I see them treated like "territories" wherein CONgress has plenary authority. (As we see STATES rights nearly mooted). I also believe that the standardized statutory language used such as "in this state" is misleading and actually refers to Washington D.C., and its subsidiaries, the two letter all capital lettered STATES (STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF INDIANA ETC.,) and not the several states. Definition: Territory 1. any tract of land; region or district. Their "federal" districts operate contrary to the Constitutional coinage mandate even though the Constitutional monetary requirement has never been repealed. HJR 192 without repeal of Article 1 section 10 should/could only be relevant to enclaves under the plenary authority of congress. (In my very humble opinion.)
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#104. To: Jhoffa_ (#72)
Recent opinions such as Kelo or those cited relating to road blocks or check points radically violate the spirit of the CONstitutional intent. When the courts tell us that the reason we as individuals haven't been violated (or in the Berg vs. Obama matter that we lack standing) is because we're all being violated equally ... fuck the courts and their twisted logic. www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm This gentleman was one of the appellate lawyers for Timothy McVeigh. The ruling he received on appeal from the "federal" court caused him to reflect upon the whole notion of CONstitutional applications, ultimately causing him to reject his bar card and practice. His determinations ring true with me and my own studies, even though at some point in time I don't think laws will mean anything to a system rotted to the core.
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.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#105. To: nolu_chan (#100)
Good point. I said it wrong. You have to be a natural born citizen. Thanks for the correction.
McCain was not born here.
#106. To: nolu_chan (#101)
Ok. Mr. Chan may I ask this question another way. You say correctly that courts have ruled that citizens have no standing. I believe that to be an incorrect ruling. We disagree on that point. Now here is the question. Do you think it is morally right to not have this question definitively answered?
The Federal court would not consider the matter of McCain's birth any more than it will consider the matter of Obama's birth. Government officials are not going there and individuals have little or no hope of success.
#107. To: nolu_chan (#98)
McCains parents were both American citizens. So his birtplace is of absolutely NO significance.
Maybe you were thinking of the cert for John McCain.
#108. To: nolu_chan (#99)
Not true. The supremes gave themselves that power by usurption. If that is not correct cite the constitutional mandate for the Supreme court.
The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court
#109. To: nolu_chan (#95)
That would have been very wise. Your quote from the constitution doesn't say that citizens have no standing.
If they had only foreseen the coming of Old Friend, I am sure they would have vested the power in you, and let you impose your peculiar interpretations of the Constitution unilaterally upon the rest of the country.
#110. To: nolu_chan (#101)
I'll throw something else out for you to chew on Chan. Was Hawaii a legal state at the time Obama was born in 1961. I have read that it isn't a lawful state. Do you know the circumstances of Hawaiis admittance into the union?
#111. To: bluegrass (#102)
Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background. The Senate issued a non-binding proclamation and has no particular authority to declare an individual to be a natural born citizen. It was just a feel-good proclamation. Something about Obama may well be being shielded from the public, but it would not affect his natural born status unless the record made public is a complete fraud in the sense that it was not issued by the state of Hawaii at all. If the document was properly issued, then it suffices to show that he was born in Hawaii. If something is being hidden, it could involve something sensitive or personal such as paternity, but that would be irrelevant to his claim of natural born citizenship. Records at birth could, perhaps, show no claim of paternity, with a later record documenting a subsequent claim of paternity. A birth in Kenya would not change to a birth in Hawaii. The McCain campaign appeared far more sensitive to the issue, obtaining a Seante resolution, and a bi-partisan opinion of Ted Olson (R) and Larry Tribe (D), and with good reason. The military base or in the Canal Zone generally was an unincorporated territory which was under the jurisdiction of the U.S., but not considered part of the U.S. for citizenship purposes. An Act of May 24, 1934 granted citizenship to "[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States...." The CZ/base was outside the limits, but not outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. For citizenship purposes, it was a legal no-man's land. In 1937, Congress passed additional legislation granting citizenship to children of U.S. citizens born in the CZ on or after February 26, 1904. Were McCain born in the CZ, the "circumstances of his birth" would, pursuant to legislation in 1937, retroactively make him a U.S. citizen. It could not, however, make him a citizen "at birth." Then one may argue whether a person who, some time after birth becomes a citizen due to the circumstances of birth is considered a "natural born" citizen, or is that status reserved for those who become citizens "at birth." To add to the legal mayhem, there is a body of legal theory that as citizenship of those born overseas is granted or withheld according to statute, and those statutes appear within the body of law on naturalization, it is granted as part of the powers granted to congress under Article 1, Section 8 "[t]o establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Under this theory they may be considered not natural born but naturalized at birth. Under the first laws, children born outside the U.S. of two U.S. citizens were considered citizens. But then they had to go and get into more detail.... Neither party wanted to touch this issue. McCain long claimed he was on base in the CZ. The certificate which popped up from the Panama Railroad Company said he was born just outside the CZ in Colon, Panama. My inclination is that McCain was, indeed, born a few hundred yards outside the CZ and was a natural born citizen. The problem is likely that, for decades, he claimed he was born in a hospital on the military base, a hospital that did not exist in 1936.
McCain was "declared" a natural born citizen by the Senate in May. The McLame campaign never hit Obama on citizenship because they didn't want it brought up either.
#112. To: Old Friend (#110)
Hawaii was admitted to the Union on Friday, August 21, 1959 pursuant to the Act of March 18, 1959. THE ADMISSION ACT. An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union (Act of March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled "An Act to provide for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the United States, and appropriating money therefor", approved May 20, 1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950, is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed. [...] Far more fun is the state of Ohio, admitted pursuant to an Act of Congress of February 19, 1803. It is considered admitted on Tuesday, March 1, 1803. Ohio authorities decided to get the original paperwork for display during the celebration of 150 years of statehood in 1953, only to find, through oversight, no proclamation had ever been issued. On August 7, 1953, Congress passed a law retroactively establishing Ohio's statehood at March 1, 1803, when Ohio first convened its legislature. Better late than never.
I'll throw something else out for you to chew on Chan. Was Hawaii a legal state at the time Obama was born in 1961. I have read that it isn't a lawful state. Do you know the circumstances of Hawaiis admittance into the union?
www.hawaii-nation.org/admission.html
#113. To: Old Friend (#108)
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The use of the term "shall" connotes the absence of discretion. The Congress was mandated to create a Supreme Court. The "supreme law of the land" includes the Constitution, laws and treaties. The Supreme Court is given judicial power over all cases arising under the the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made. Treaties and Federal laws are equal and each is subordinate to the Constitution. Damn. The Supreme Law of the Land includes the Constitution AND laws AND treaties. All three at once. Imagine that. Can you dig it? Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002 Ibid. 376 The Constitution gives the president the authority, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." These treaties are the law of the land and prevail over all conflicting state laws. If there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls. The Court has explained that when a statute and a treaty "relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other." Ibid at 275-6. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, declared this statutory increase in presidential power unconstitutional. Justice Stevens explained that the president, by exercising the line-item veto, was changing a law adopted by Congress; the final version of the law is diffferent after the veto than what Congress passed. The Court concluded that the Constitution does not allow such presidential authority. Justice Stevens wrote: "In both legal and practical effect, the President has amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. '[R]epeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.' There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." The Court emphasized that the procedures for enacting and vetoing laws contained in the Constitution must be strictly adhered to and that any changes must come from a constitutional amendment, not legislative action. Ibid at 336-7 * * * Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert, the Court held that American civilian dependents of military personnel in a foreign country must be accorded a trial that meets the dictates of the Constitution. Justice Black explained that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Ibid at 361 Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, 68 Ibid at 156 Yet the Court found that it could not grant the remedy in an original action because it was not within the jurisdiction fixed for the Court by Article III. The opinion interpreted a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as placing this action within its jurisdiction but found that this law conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall concluded by holding that the Supreme Court had the power to declare such a law to be invalid as a violation of the Constitution. Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, West Publishing Co., 1991, p. 2 That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations, is clear.... The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments.... It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a cession or any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.... Ibid at 210 American Constitutional Law, 3 ed., Vol. I, West Publishing Co., Laurence H. Tribe, p. 647 Ibid at 647 Ibid at 210 Not true. The supremes gave themselves that power by usurption. If that is not correct cite the constitutional mandate for the Supreme court.
ARTICLE 3
ARTICLE 6 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
U.S. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 2
One other provision that expressly relates to federalism is the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the Constitution. It declares that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This provision sets up a clearly hierarchical relationship between the federal government and the states. Practically, the effect is that state and local laws are deemed preempted if they conflict with federal law."
As the Supreme Court declared: "[U]nder the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, 'any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.'"
[Underline added]
A related issue is the extent to which Congress, by statute, may increase presidential powers beyond what are found in the Constitution. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statute which created authority for a presidential line-item veto. The statute empowered the president to veto (or more precisely to "cancel") particular parts of appropriation bills while allowing the rest to go into effect. Congress could overturn such a veto by a majority vote of both houses.
Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court held § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Act was read by Justice Marshall, perhaps erroneously, to enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits defined in Art. III of the Constitution. Since the constitution prescribes the powers delegated by the people to the national govenrment, a congressional act contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.
Art. VI provides that all treaties which are made "under the authority of the United States" are the supreme law of the land. They prevail, as do Executive Agreements, over inconsistent state law. Treaties and Executive Agreements are subject to constitutional limitations. Reid v. Covert (1957). Treaties and Acts of Congress are on a par, i.e., the last in time controls. The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).
On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In the opinion the court held that Marbury had a right to his judicial commission. In so doing the Court found that the executive was subject to certain legal and constitutional restraints that could be enforced by the judiciary.
This clause [The Supremacy Clause] at one time had been interpreted by legal authorities to suggest that treaties were equal to the Constitution. As a consequence the theory developed that said that treaties were not subject to any constitutional limitations.....
Quoting Mr. Justice Field of the Supreme Court in De Geofroy v. Riggs.
If there were any remaining doubt on the issue whether there is any outer limit to the treaty-making power, that question was closed resoundingly in Reid v. Covert, where a plurality of the Supreme Court, in holding American civilian dependents of overseas military personnel entitled to civilian trial, stated that neither a treaty nor an executive agreement "can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free fom the restraints of the Constitution."
Footnote 18
see also The Cherokee tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620-21 (1871)(dictum) ("a treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument").
"[A]ll those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177.
#114. To: Old Friend (#106)
The question has been definitively answered regarding standing for a few centuries. As for a moral right, you should take that up in the moral courts you would establish. Consult the Taliban for specifics of those courts. We do not have them in the U.S. yet.
Ok. Mr. Chan may I ask this question another way. You say correctly that courts have ruled that citizens have no standing. I believe that to be an incorrect ruling. We disagree on that point. Now here is the question. Do you think it is morally right to not have this question definitively answered?
#115. To: noone222 (#103)
We can respectfully agree to disagree on how the legal system actually exists and functions (as opposed to opinions on what it should be or how it should function). The District Court is an Article III court within the judiciary. Courts existing within the executive, such as courts-martial or certain administrative courts are not Article III courts. Berg lacks standing because he has no particularized interest in the outcome and because he does not describe any personal injury to himself. His litigation concerns a state election for the right to select state delegates to the electoral college. He was not deprived of his right to vote. He has not identified any violation of any constitutional right directly pertaining to himself. The real allegation is that state authorities did not perform adequately, but he cites no law, state or federal, that they allegedly violated. They need only perform the acts required of them by law. The states created the federal government at a time when Washington, D.C. did not exist. The states existed prior to the Constitution and by that document they authorized the subsequent creation of the District of Columbia. It is impossible for D.C. to have been the federal state under the AoC or initially under the Constitution. The change in effective status was rendered through sheer power and was the primary product of the Civil War (War Between the States). The union was created as a league of friendship with the Federal government to serve very limited functions. Lincoln's bass ackwards rendition of states, was given in a message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861 where he tried to explain away his actions in taking the country to war. The statement is riddled with lies. His claims about the union stood reality on its head. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union. Unquestionably the States have the powers, and rights, reserved to them in, and by the National Constitution.... The states made the union, some had constitutions, and they created a Federal constitution, with the term "National" having been explicitly rejected. As for "federal" districts , if that refers to judicial districts, it only refers to which court enjoys jurisdiction in which territory. It could be changed and splitting up the 9th Circuit has been considered for some time. HJR 192 without repeal of Article 1 section 10 should/could only be relevant to enclaves under the plenary authority of congress. (In my very humble opinion.) Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the Unites States, Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts, Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of t Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is herby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. (b) As used in this resolution, the term 'obligation' means any obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term 'coin or currency' means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. Sec. 2 The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled 'An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and of other purposes;, approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows: "All coins and currencies of the United Stated (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight.' Approved, June 5, 1933, 4:40 p.m. 31 U.S.C.A. 462, 463 I should think that establishment of the Federal Reserve, and their control of the currency of the United States, is legally dubious, but I could not find Article 1, Section 10 being an impediment. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress is given the power "[t]o coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." It does not belong in the hands of private banks or some semi-sort-of regulated mysterious semi-sort-of but not really official government entity. As for the power to coin money, I'm really dubious that it confers upon anybody the right to coin (?) paper and force people who previously contracted for payment in gold to accept a paper substitute. However, the only successful challenge would probably be a revolution. Coin, v. To fashion pieces of metal into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamp them with prescribed devices, by authority of government, in order that they may circulate as money. Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457, 12 Wall. 457, 20 L.Ed. 287; Thayer v. Hedges, 22 Ind. 282. To invent words or phrases. Coin, re. Pieces of gold, silver, or other metal, fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamped, by authority of government, with certain marks and devices, and put into circulation as money at a fixed value. Metal money. Coinage. The process or the function of coining metallic money; also the great mass of metallic money in circulation. Coinage clause. Provision in U.S. Constitution granting to Congress the power to coin money, Art. I, § 8, par. 5. http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/lincoln/spmsg.asp
U.S. Const., Article 1, Section 10
House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 )
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
#116. To: bluegrass (#102)
What do you think his "purpose" is? What is his 'raison d'etre'?
Something is waaay fishy about Obama's background.
#117. To: Lady X (#116)
Obama wanted to be president, end of story. He utilized any and all methods to get there, even aligning himself with thieves and murderers. Power corrupts, etc...
#118. To: nolu_chan (#115)
That's the bottom line !
However, the only successful challenge would probably be a revolution.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#119. To: nolu_chan (#115)
As for the power to coin money, I'm really dubious that it confers upon anybody the right to coin (?) paper and force people who previously contracted for payment in gold to accept a paper substitute. However, the only successful challenge would probably be a revolution. On this point we find complete agreement. This is, in my opinion, the most detrimental factor influencing the destruction of America. Debt cannot be made "MONEY" no matter how official it is made to appear. When one considers receiving wages that should be "MONEY" and is actually legislated debt that bears interest (usurious in nature), this is fraud by license.
It does not belong in the hands of private banks or some semi-sort-of regulated mysterious semi-sort-of but not really official government entity.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
#120. To: nolu_chan (#111)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest