Tuesday, 1 September 2015

The Light Is Better Over Here

from birtherreport.com: ‘Breaking Report: 9th Circuit Court To Hear The Case Of Obama’s Bogus Birth Certificate & SSN’ - Law Office of Orly Taitz - September 1 (posted at devvy.net - September 1)
(“If the 3 judges on the panel of the 9th Circuit have one grain of decency and moral values, they will find that this is a justiciable question and should allow Attorney Taitz to go back to the district court and proceed with discovery and subpoena the original Connecticut Social Security application  for SSN 042-68-4425, which Obama is fraudulently using and which was issued    to Harrison J Bounel, presumed to be deceased without heirs. Taitz would be able to subpoena the originals for other bogus IDs Obama is using…”) 

Johnny · 14 hours ago (September 1)

Any judge that claims eligibility is not a justiciable issue should be disbarred.


MDB · 11 hours ago

The Judges are not claiming that Obama’s eligibility is not a justicable issue. What the courts are saying is that they are Article III Courts, (The Supreme Court and the lower courts), and that hence they have no jurisdiction over whether a sitting President (confirmed by Congress to be eligible), is truly eligible. 

What the courts are saying is that once Congress has confirmed that the President Elect is eligible to serve as President (which Congress has done twice in Obama’s case), only Congress specifically the Senate Judiciary can reverse or disturb that confirmation and that they, (the Article III Courts), have no say so whatsoever in or over the matter.


Johnny · 9 hours ago

Which is mistaken. Sitting Executives can and have been judicially removed for ineligibility.


MDB · 8 hours ago

True, and being an executive the President can be judicially removed for ineligibility, however it must be by the proper judiciary. The US Constitution does not grant article III Courts the power to remove a sitting President. The only court authorized to remove a sitting President is the Senate Judiciary presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, however neither the Supreme Court nor any of the lower courts have such power.


·Johnny - 3 hours ago

Courts find fact and apply law. If a court determines that a person is ineligible they are removed. 

BTW the Senate Judiciary is not a court.


MDB · 1 hour ago

For your edification this is the definition of Judiciary as defined by Mirriam Webster. Oxfords English Dictionary has a similar definition – “the courts of law and judges in a country : the branch of government that includes courts of law and judges”. The Senate judiciary is the court that tries a sitting President once the House has filed Articles of impeachment with the Senate. In an impeachment, the House acts as prosecutors laying before the court (the Senate Judiciary with the chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the Judge presiding over the Court, (again the Senate Judiciary). 

Congress created and creates all courts pursuant to Article III and decides what kind of cases each court is permitted to hear. Though officially a committee, The Senate Judiciary through Article III sec 3 Clause 6, is granted the right to act as a court for the purpose of deciding whether a sitting President shall be removed from office with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court as the Judge. No other court is granted this right under the Constitution and no article III court (The US Supreme Court nor any lower court). will ever even attempt to claim that they also have that power.


kibitzer3 60p · 2 minutes ago

If so, a) the law in this country is an ass; and b) we constitutionalists need to be all prepared, and the instant that the Usurper declares Martial Law (over whatever orchestrated crisis opportunity), and thus suspends the Constitution, we take back our country: arrest the Usurper, Biden, Pelosi, and whomsoever else were involved in his illegal declaration of eligibility; dissolve the sitting Congress, for failing to do its constitutional duty regarding a rogue executive; clean out the Executive branch of all its would-be nation-hijackers; and hold the officials of both the Democrat and Republican parties under house arrest until order can be restored in the country, at which point they will be charged under RICO statutes for colluding in the commission of the crime of putting up an illegal candidate for the presidency. And all sorts of things will follow from there, in restoring the nation to its constitutional roots - that is, in the RULE OF LAW. Not of men. Otherwise known as arbitrary law. Which is the hallmark of tyrants, down through the ages. 

Enough of this crap. No more asking the judicial branch to pretty please look at this issue. It's time to take the bull by the horns, and leave the bullshit behind.


On The Second Coming

‘Welcome, Sir!  Good to have you with us.’

‘Thank you.  I would say that I am happy to be here, but I’m not precisely sure what is going on.  I left you with a Constitution, through my servants.’

‘Yes; indeed.  And a good job you - they - did of it, too!  It has seen us - ’

‘And it had some amendments, over a period of time.’

‘Yes, Sir.  To allow for changes.  As I’m sure you understand.’

‘To the contract, yes.  And the role of the Supreme Court?’

‘To interpret the law.’

‘To interpret the law.’

‘Yes.  Sir.’  

‘To interpret the original intent and meaning of the law?’

‘Well; no.  Not exactly.  To interpret it, in the light of - ‘

‘Changed attitudes.’  

‘Yes!  Sir.  That’s it.’

‘Meaning, words mean what you say they mean, at any given time.’

‘Well…yes.  In a nutshell.  Sir.’

‘So the rule of law here is, rather, the rule of men.’

‘…If you want to put it that way.  Sir.’

‘I do.  And I tell you what.  I’m leaving now.’

‘What?  But you just got here.  Sir.’

‘Yes, but, you see, I just can’t function in the dark anymore.  Especially this dark.  I've served my time in hell.  You were supposed to have used your free will to have proven yourselves and cleaned up your act by now, and we were to go further into the Light, together, as family; inheriting the kingdom, and all that.  This won’t do, as interpreted by you.  Goodbye.’

‘But - wait!  When will you come back??’

‘That depends on youuuuuuuu................'

No comments: