Birthers told to go pound sand

[ehidle]

In a cleverly-worded opinion, a Federal Judge has ruled that only Congress has the jurisdiction to hear any case intended to remove a sitting President. In dismissing the case calling for Obama to prove his citizenship, the judge said that plaintiffs were trying to persuade him to "disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president."

Clever... stall the case until he is elected, then tell us that only Pelosi and her minions can decide if Obama is really eligible...

"Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic," the ruling said. "Quite the contrary, this court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."

So, now it is only patriotic to leave a President in office where there is cause to believe he is not eligible to hold that office.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...e-president-2/

Clever indeed...

[larrymeyer]

Did you expect anything different from Carter ??????


U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California was nominated by President Bill Clinton on June 25, 1998 to fill a seat vacated by William J. Rea. Carter was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission the following day.[1] He now sits in the Southern Division of the Central District of California in Orange County, California. His courtroom deputy clerk is Kristee Hopkins

[LittleRedToyota]

Did you expect anything different from Carter ??????


U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California was nominated by President Bill Clinton on June 25, 1998 to fill a seat vacated by William J. Rea. Carter was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission the following day.[1] He now sits in the Southern Division of the Central District of California in Orange County, California. His courtroom deputy clerk is Kristee Hopkins

well, how about judge Land...who smacked down Orly Taitz's birther lawsuit and even fined Taitz for bringing it?

was that because Taitz was appointed by Clinton as well? seems unlikely given that Land was appointed by Bush.

sorry, but you can't get away with writing the case off by just blaming Clinton (or even democrats in general) on this one.

[larrymeyer]

well, how about judge Land...who smacked down Orly Taitz's birther lawsuit and even fined Taitz for bringing it?

was that because Taitz was appointed by Clinton as well? seems unlikely given that Land was appointed by Bush.

sorry, but you can't get away with writing the case off by just blaming Clinton (or even democrats in general) on this one.

Sorry the case was about a military officer who refused to deploy because she didn't believe the O had the authority to deplloy her because he wasn't a citizen of the US. The ruling was Judge Land had no authority over the military so he threw the case out.

[BSH]

I haven't read the 30-page opinion - seems like it could have been dismissed for lack of merit, rather than deferring on the political question (which is correct, anyway).

[t1m0thy]

I don't know if there is anything to this whole thing, but that's my problem, we can't know because Obama has hidden any record that would prove the birthers wrong. Why would it be so hard to just show everyone the proof that would shut these people up for good? I would not have given this stuff a second thought if it hadn't been for the lack of transparency on the part of our so-called President.

[ehidle]

I don't know if there is anything to this whole thing, but that's my problem, we can't know because Obama has hidden any record that would prove the birthers wrong. Why would it be so hard to just show everyone the proof that would shut these people up for good? I would not have given this stuff a second thought if it hadn't been for the lack of transparency on the part of our so-called President.

The statement in bold assumes that a record exists that would prove them wrong. You know what they say about assumptions... don't you?

[eXceLon]

I haven't read the 30-page opinion - seems like it could have been dismissed for lack of merit, rather than deferring on the political question (which is correct, anyway).

I know what you mean, but I don't know that I'd call it a "political question".

It's a matter of constitutionally delegated authority. The court had no standing to hear the case in the first place.

Impeachment in the United States

Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

[ABuck]

Once again, Leo Donofrio is proven to be correct. This guy seems sharp as a tack. He's proven Factcheck.org to be wrong, more than once, he caught The Wall Street Journal telling lies, and then in the retraction, they lied again. And he has covered the topic of this trial also.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress....that-district/

If you are at all interested in the eligibility issues, his blog (and the comment section) is about the best single source I have found. I think if anyone will make any progress on this, it will turn out to be him.

Plenty of other related topics at the main blog page.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

I know people don't want to hear about this, but we do need this to advance properly through the courts, so we don't have to go through this all again.

[larrymeyer]

I know what you mean, but I don't know that I'd call it a "political question".

It's a matter of constitutionally delegated authority. The court had no standing to hear the case in the first place.

Impeachment in the United States

I think your missing the point the court should be ruling on whether he was elected under false pretext. Lying that he was an American citizen then if convicted for a felony the House and Senate could hear the case.

Not sure if it would be good are bad as Biden would get the reins of government if he was found guilty. Of course he could end all this BS by providing the proof he's an American Citizen