tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post352967820895851033..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner AppealMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55143524653218169282010-03-17T11:02:24.121-04:002010-03-17T11:02:24.121-04:00one need wonder...if these men file to protect the...one need wonder...if these men file to protect the man who would be president...then the courts could have no constitutional authority to remove a valid president...it would be an issue of standing...however...it is against the man...not the office...that this is about...the man who committed fraud against all americans who voted for POTUS...a constitutional right...guaranteed to each and every one of us...a civil right nobody can take away...and we dont have....standing...to protest the fraud...in the courts in our country...that are sworn...to uphold our laws...and are opposed by the very arm of the law that also swore an oath...to protect our rights...our constitution...against any threats...foreign or...domestic...this isnt about standing...its obstruction...its an overt attempt to undermine our constitution...by undermining our courts....our legal system...and our rights....jshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556528525557443583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29340232091235731112010-03-16T17:53:54.696-04:002010-03-16T17:53:54.696-04:00squinlivan:
I believe you've missed the point...squinlivan:<br /><br />I believe you've missed the point that the DOJ has mis-applied the law by using it ("standing") where it does not apply AT ALL.<br /><br />If you check my post just above on the matter you'll get some insight into WHY it is not meaningful as they try to (mis) use it.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68557386662855947342010-03-16T11:24:13.023-04:002010-03-16T11:24:13.023-04:00THe COnstitution DOES SAY that Congress MUST BE IN...THe COnstitution DOES SAY that Congress MUST BE IN SESSION for at least ONE day.....so if Congress decides to take a recess for 14 months does that mean that NO CITIZEN has a right to hold them to account under our right to petition the government for redress of this violation of the COnstitutional mandate...it does if we accept the argument of the DOJ in defending a lack of standing fr anyone to question the governments lack of compliance with the supreme law off the land....and any COurt that accepts this reasoning means the end of the rule of law and the begining of the rule of men......is this the end of the greatest republic the world has ever known ?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19955612376123695392010-03-14T15:07:17.183-04:002010-03-14T15:07:17.183-04:00medical:
Unless Prof. Bright is political to his ...medical:<br /><br />Unless Prof. Bright is political to his core, he certainly SHOULD disclose his failure to find the Big O as having attended Harvard. Even if he IS political to his core, why not be intellectually honest as it is becoming increasingly clear that ALL citizens have been lied to and defrauded by a shyster ... and there ARE, indeed, penalties in our laws for such things - some of them quite severe.<br /><br />Some of these sorts of laws even apply to those conspiring and/or colluding with such a person (or group).<br /><br />Let's just get this national nightmare over with ASAP. Putting it off merely makes things worse.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21357700331577777252010-03-13T01:26:41.990-05:002010-03-13T01:26:41.990-05:00I have just heard from Stephen Bright, a professor...I have just heard from Stephen Bright, a professor of law at Harvard University. He also seems to be having trouble locating any records at all showing the Usurper was ever a student there. Being a far left liberal, I doubt Professor Bright will publicly disclose his findings.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30289303293759868012010-03-13T01:18:42.254-05:002010-03-13T01:18:42.254-05:00The Declaration of Independence was issued in July...The Declaration of Independence was issued in July of 1776. Once again, it's time for action, not mere words. "Ultimately, the states collectively determined that the British monarchy, by acts of tyranny, could no longer legitimately claim their allegiance." This time it is Washington that is guilty of "acts of tyranny", which must be addressed by the Citizens in no uncertain terms. To ignore the constant stream of tyranny flowing from Washington would constitute a grave error in judgement.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43980917830250533422010-03-12T18:25:24.660-05:002010-03-12T18:25:24.660-05:00The defense attorneys are misstating the "sta...The defense attorneys are misstating the "standing" concept in any event and they are merely attempting to use the time-honored liberal tactic of taking what they viewed as an "incorrect" conservative opinion in a seminal lawsuit (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife) with the Court's opinion written by one of the more detested Justices (Scalia), turning it around (inapplicably) and attempting to beat all conservatives over the head with it to protect their own liberal positions (or, in this case, their ineligible holder of the Oval Office).<br /><br />The Lujan case had to do with governmental regulations (e.g. laws, statutes, or Congressional actions) that were being litigated against by a group attempting to overturn a regulatory effect/law passed by Congress.<br /><br />Scalia's opinion - a good one and well-written - applied to the instance then at hand ... an effort to overturn a Legislative (and/or Executive) act due to not having (in the words of the opinion) "standing". Ever since Lujan has been cited by liberalfolk as meaning, in effect, you conservatives can't sue anyone.<br /><br />That's great - except that's not the situation in the Kerchner et al action. Here there IS no regulatory or statutory or executive thing to be overturned so it is abject nonsense to claim (as the DOJ has done) that there is no "standing" since what is being complained of is not that which does not exist (the statute or action they pretend exists) but a violation of the Constitition which is (as I'm sure they know but will not admit) supreme to any Legislative or Executive act - nor is there any interpretation of the language of the Constitution required ... it very clearly calls out the 3 eligibility requirements.<br /><br />So the DOJ is merely trying to use the Arthur Conan Doyle aphorism of "the dog that did not bark" by misapplying the Lujan opinion to Kerchner et all which is about a completely different set of facts and circumstances not addressed by Lujan at all.<br /><br />Let's hope that they are not allowed to misapply the law in this fashion. That's even in view of the almost equally egregious attempt to present Berg (etc.) as some identical form of pleading when it is not at all. It's all just liberal misdirection run amok ... sort of a soft shoe dance for America-haters.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67080532712191795302010-03-12T13:01:05.219-05:002010-03-12T13:01:05.219-05:00” Word now is that the 3rd Cir is going to grant r...” Word now is that the 3rd Cir is going to grant review; hold that the parentage concepts incorporated in the “Natural Born” requirement were eliminated by the born in the USA provisions of the 14th Amendment.<br /><br />When 2012 rolls around and the state election officer starts to work on the issue of compliance with state eligibility for ballot rules, the question of Obama’s eligibility is now res judicata—already decided. Forget about that challenge. “<br /><br />http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2466870/posts?page=14#14<br /><br />Any truth to that?rxsidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03703783502830759460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14727028017166902352010-03-11T20:13:17.025-05:002010-03-11T20:13:17.025-05:00wipinitboss:
Actually you seem better-informed th...wipinitboss:<br /><br />Actually you seem better-informed than the original Federal District judge whose ruling is being appealed.<br /><br />To understand just what is being appealed in the Kerchner et al case it would be helpful to read this legal analysis:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/22/simandles-4-strikes-against-the-u-s-constitution/" rel="nofollow">A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!!</a> and, following that, if you go to the <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Mario Apuzzo website</a> and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you're in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys "defending" Obama using our tax money).<br /><br />That's doubly ironic since these attorneys - and their bosses - took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.<br /><br />The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders' intent vis-a-vis Article II of the <br />Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as "smrstrauss" and others.<br /><br />I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to <a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">the publicity/education fund</a> presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.<br /><br />The Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible. <br /><br />Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.<br /><br />Actually, Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.<br /><br />If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.<br /><br />In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.<br /><br />Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU" rel="nofollow">Three Little Words</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY" rel="nofollow">Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!</a>jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18708495734376714162010-03-11T12:33:55.840-05:002010-03-11T12:33:55.840-05:00Stupid me, but the political question is answered ...Stupid me, but the political question is answered that the congress became a defendant by not performing their duty to qualify the persons seeking office. And, isn't part of the duty to install the VP elect in case of failure to qualify? Is the court able to ignore the plain letter of the amendment by allowing no qualification to occur? Why did they include the option unless it was a duty to enforce? <br /><br />And, as a lay person, isn't the defendant saying that my co-defendant has refused to perform their duty, therefore, it is no one's concern but my co-defendant whether or not the duty to perform ever gets done?<br /><br />Just my $.02 <br />Bob SearleUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583477119496054588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31225494312741418162010-03-10T22:14:11.776-05:002010-03-10T22:14:11.776-05:00II of II
The Wong Kim Ark decision is also suspec...II of II<br /><br />The Wong Kim Ark decision is also suspect given that Justice Gray was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Chester Arthur who was born in 1829 presumably in the United States but, unknown to the public, to confirmed alien parents. “At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur's father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843.” Cf. William Arthur's certificate of naturalization, State of New York, 08-31-1843, in: The Chester A. Arthur Papers, Library of Congress, Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur#cite_note-2. At that time, Chester Arthur’s U.S.-born mother would have become a British subject when she married her British husband. The position that the Government took in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a U.S. citizen also existed in 1881 when Chester Arthur became Vice President and President. Some argue that Chester Arthur hid the fact that he was born to alien parents from the American people when he ran for Vice President. With Chester Arthur not even being a citizen of the United States when he was born, he surely was not eligible to be President. These indisputable facts put a cloud of suspicion over the Wong Kim Ark decision."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62331789742989701592010-03-10T22:13:56.372-05:002010-03-10T22:13:56.372-05:00I of II
I just left this comment at Dr. Conspira...I of II <br /><br />I just left this comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog: <br /><br />"SFJeff, <br /><br />Why do I see so many disclaimers on this site that the commentators are not lawyers. Do you expect to get a license to say things that are incorrect because you claim not to be a lawyer? <br /><br />Why do you invent things by saying that Wong Kim Ark defined what a "natural born Citizen" is? Wong Kim Ark is no bullet. It is not definitive and it is no precedent for what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. You are the one that is speculating and stretching things to make Wong Kim Ark controlling on the question of what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. <br /><br />I do not believe that Wong Kim Ark is wrong in how it defined a "natural born Citizen." Do not conveniently put words into my mouth. Again, the decision did not define a "natural born Citizen." I believe that it is wrong in how it mischaracterized what the Founders meant to do when it came to defining national citizenship. Justice Gray simply took the old English common law definition of "natural born subject" that prevailed during the colonies (which by the way under the English common law also included naturalized citizens) and used that to define a "modern" (in 1898) "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment. The Framers would never have done that. Rather, they would have expected natural law and the law of nations to provide the rule of decision on defining the new national citizenship. <br /><br />Justice Gray avoided natural law and the law of nations by saying that all the civilized nations were not in agreement as to its meaning. This was disingenuous given that the Framers and Founders used mostly Vattel to inform them on what the law of nations said. For the Founders, there was no split on what the law of nations said on defining "citizens" and "natural born citizens." Even Chief Justice Marshall, one of the Founders, in The Venus (1814), relied upon Vattel to define domicile and national citizenship, defining a native or indigenes as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Clearly, this was the same definition that Pufendorf and Vattel gave to these citizens. Justice Gray did not even mention Chief Justice Marshall's reliance on Vattel and all the previous Supreme Court cases that cited Vattel also. Justice Gray did not address why Minor said that there was no doubt that a "natural born Citizen" was a child born to citizen parents and that there was doubt whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the only U.S. Supreme Court case that up to that time relied upon English common law to define U.S. national citizenship. It stands alone in history on that score. <br /><br />Continued ...Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47292641759136696852010-03-10T21:39:23.417-05:002010-03-10T21:39:23.417-05:00Charles & Mario,
This link was posted elsewhe...Charles & Mario,<br /><br />This link was posted elsewhere, by someone whom I think posts here as well. In any case, this lawsuit shows that at least in Texas, state party chairs have standing to contest the eligibility of a candidate to keep a name off the ballot. Furthermore, political candidates have similar standing if they believe their opponent is ineligible.<br /><br />http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/459/582/489588/Ericahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17519630584677986406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76799854154760747112010-03-10T13:22:04.542-05:002010-03-10T13:22:04.542-05:00Mr. Apuzzo:
What right does a citizen of the Unite...Mr. Apuzzo:<br />What right does a citizen of the United States have to tell a private corporation (Corporation Amerika) who can be its president? "We" only work for the corporation, we don't sit on its board or anything. Those we elect do not represent "us", they're just board members. <br /><br />This is why Michelle-the-snot said there's nothing we the people can do about this corporate appointment. <br /><br />Wouldn't it really be better to do a couple-million-person sit-in on the corporate offices in DC and shred everything and reimpose our original Constitution?Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89075090959358212722010-03-10T10:59:46.536-05:002010-03-10T10:59:46.536-05:00Mario,
TRY THIS...my comments added to the origin...Mario,<br /><br />TRY THIS...my comments added to the original in BRACKETS!!!<br /><br />FROM FLAST v COHEN:<br /><br />We have noted that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does specifically limit the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, § 8...[notice how the 1st Amendment effects the limit on Article 1, sec 8, cause there is no actual words limiting what Congress may tax to raise money for its "lawful purposes."]<br /><br />Whether the Constitution contains other specific limitations can be determined only in the context of future cases. [This is the future case, as Congress is charged with "insuring" that the President is eligibil and competent, and may not work around "his infirmity" OR can they?] However, whenever such specific limitations are found, we believe a taxpayer will have a clear stake as a taxpayer in assuring that they are not breached by Congress. Consequently, we hold that a taxpayer will have standing <br /><br />Page 392 U. S. 106<br /><br />consistent with Article III to invoke federal judicial power when he alleges that congressional action under the taxing and spending clause is in derogation of those constitutional provisions which operate to restrict the exercise of the taxing and spending power. [Congress must comply with the ministerial mandates of the Constitution, re NBC, which to date they have not] The taxpayer's allegation in such cases would be that his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative power. Such an injury is appropriate for judicial redress, and the taxpayer has established the necessary nexus between his status and the nature of the allegedly unconstitutional action to support his claim of standing to secure judicial review.<br /><br />[ So come on now Mario, additionally you need to argue that the Judicial decision would result in the relief you seek, that there is a "concrete question regarding the plain language limits imposed upon the Office of the President, THAT CONGRESS MUST conform to....alittle Judicial notice pointing out, States in increasing numbers laying new laws requiring proof for canidates, that this issue will not go away, that the truth will be resolved, and as difficult as it is, if later the COurts have been found to have shorked their responsibiliy over such a grave matter, the earlier this issue secures a judicial resolution the less of a crisis it will be...}<br /><br />SO MARIO< am I losing the force of argument here or can this merit your attention????<br /><br />Thanks ShawnUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47047090685452329252010-03-10T10:53:07.823-05:002010-03-10T10:53:07.823-05:00James:
Yes - it looks as though the average of le...James:<br /><br />Yes - it looks as though the average of less than 2 emails a day they bitch about has "overwhelmed" them!!!<br /><br />No doubt they'll have to raise state taxes to hire another green eyeshade and buy 3 more #2 pencils or perhaps use one of the computers they used to make up the *.pdf you noted ...jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53796130340211964192010-03-10T10:53:07.822-05:002010-03-10T10:53:07.822-05:00James:
Yes - it looks as though the average of le...James:<br /><br />Yes - it looks as though the average of less than 2 emails a day they bitch about has "overwhelmed" them!!!<br /><br />No doubt they'll have to raise state taxes to hire another green eyeshade and buy 3 more #2 pencils or perhaps use one of the computers they used to make up the *.pdf you noted ...jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-1693111916776242422010-03-10T10:12:12.523-05:002010-03-10T10:12:12.523-05:00According the Hawaii DOH, Repeated requests for O...According the Hawaii DOH, Repeated requests for Obama's vital records has been causing alot of problems for the small department. This is a significant development. It means our efforts there are definitely having an effect and causing a hinderance in daily operation. Pressure should be continued until Hawaii DOH releases the information we are entitled to know. According to Post and Email, Hawaii DOH has repeatly refused requests they legally required to grant under the law.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71153547854587714792010-03-10T10:09:52.742-05:002010-03-10T10:09:52.742-05:00Mario,
You know how to make a good argument...and...Mario,<br /><br />You know how to make a good argument...and to plug the "holes" no lets take the FLAST test to this ACTION...because their is a Nexus connection to the "unlawful disrepect for the Constitution" as exhibited by both Obama and the Congress WHO it can factually be said TRIED and temporarily succeeded in doing a "SAXBE FIX" regarding the NBC clause of the COnstitution.....Use the FLAST TEST because after all it was how the Supremes believedthat they were preserving the private right to prosecute a government offense of the law....wasn't it???<br /><br />See below:<br /><br /><br />From OYEZ.....<br />Conclusion: <br />In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26695754778269342512010-03-10T09:27:36.339-05:002010-03-10T09:27:36.339-05:00HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS COMPLAINING!!!!!! L...HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS COMPLAINING!!!!!! LET'S KEEP THE PRESSURE UP!!!!<br />http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdf<br />HIT THEM HARD WITH UIPA REQUESTS!!!!Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85662318198123611022010-03-10T09:19:39.759-05:002010-03-10T09:19:39.759-05:00Hawaii DOH is feeling the pressure and is complain...Hawaii DOH is feeling the pressure and is complaining about it. Let's keep the pressure up and don't give them an inch:<br />http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdfJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85382754939289545362010-03-09T23:21:38.808-05:002010-03-09T23:21:38.808-05:00Mario,
DEVELOPE the FLAST test as related to this...Mario,<br /><br />DEVELOPE the FLAST test as related to this issue of "Constitutional Eligibility".....<br /><br />Flast Test<br />The Court developed a two-part test to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. First, because a taxpayer alleges injury only by virtue of his liability for taxes, the Court held that "a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution." *479 Id., at 102, 88 S.Ct., at 1954. Second, the Court required the taxpayer to "show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8." Id., at 102-103, 88 S.Ct., at 1954."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-22477838665865161102010-03-09T22:55:21.510-05:002010-03-09T22:55:21.510-05:00Mario,
I and you know that unless you defeat this...Mario,<br /><br />I and you know that unless you defeat this "judicially created doctrine of standing then this case is DEAD......<br /><br />PLEASE REVIEW .....<br /><br />The United States Supreme Court has held that taxpayer standing is not a sufficient basis for standing against the United States government, unless the government has allocated funds in a way that violates a specific prohibition found in the Constitution.[18] <br /><br />SEE Frothingham v. Mellon, NOTE UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOCATED FUNDS IN A WAY THAT VIOLATES A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION FOUND IN THE CNSTITUTION....<br /><br />ITS time for Mario to, as Justice Scalia recently commented during oral argument before the court...you sir, must be looking to overturn 140 plus years of decisions and gaining a job as a Legal Scholar??? <br /><br />NOPE not looking for a job Justice Scalia, just seeking justice for my client......<br /><br />CLEARLY what took place here in laymens terms is that "THOSE CHARGED with the ministerial duty to enforce and comply with the mandates of the constitution Re ELECTIONS failed to due their assigned duties, and these duties are NOT up to their discretion, BUT MUST comply with the plain language directives of the Constitution, and according to US Supreme COurt precedent in Frothingham.....<br /><br />This is an argument for the life of the countryUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-32733111567749339102010-03-09T14:31:56.905-05:002010-03-09T14:31:56.905-05:00Obama banks on 'no standing' decision:
M...Obama banks on 'no standing' decision:<br /><br /> Maybe we can get Barry by filing a Class Action Law Suit.<br />The US Citizens vs. OB, There is so much debt now and his polices<br />are bankrupting the USA. There should be enough evidence to <br />prove we are all injured by this imposter.<br /><br />DaveDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11404467229613161085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33531795589947727232010-03-09T12:38:11.005-05:002010-03-09T12:38:11.005-05:00The injury, is that Obama is not a Natural Born Ci...The injury, is that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by our U.S. Constitution.<br /><br />It is so simple that people over think it.<br /><br />Tex- <a href="http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm" rel="nofollow"><b><br /> DixHistory</b></a>Dixhistoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131112648747290805noreply@blogger.com