Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility
- Thread starter eredeath
- Start date
tonesforjonesbones
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,657
Well, we need to start bombarding the congress for impeachment. We have got to make these barstards start listening to we the people. Tones
Elwar
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 8,226
They'll deny it...get used to no hope...
tonesforjonesbones
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,657
I saw today 48 more suits have been filed. This will continue. good. tones
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Right.... because that was soooo effective with the financial sector bailout, right?
The current Congress cant impeach someone who isn't sworn in yet. And the next Congress will be Democrat and we know that ain't gonna happen. Nice wishful thinking though.
Well, I for one, am more than a little dismayed, and think there out to be some sort of explanation due. It would be interesting to get Judge Andrew Napolitano's opinion, especially with respect to the wethepeoplecongress.org's view that lack of a response to a petition for grievance not being answered giving right to refrain from paying any taxes.
EastWindRain
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 391
I just bought myself a copy of the "Globe" tabloid magazine (from the super market check out stand) yesterday, which was December 14th, 2008. The date on the paper is December 22nd, 2008. (I guess it only publishes once per week) Check out the front cover. Keep up the pressure everyone.
http://www.globemagazine.com/
http://www.globemagazine.com/
tonesforjonesbones
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,657
Well what are you gonna do Matt? Give up? I will go down fighting. I wonder what Ron Paul says about all this? Tones
tonesforjonesbones
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,657
we have GOT to keep making noise. there is a petition..please sign it, while I don't think that alone will do it, but I DO recall that when the congress was trying to pass those amnesty bills...bombarding the senate switchboard and shutting it down DID work. Those guys were strong armed on that bail out...and if you recall, it was the republicans who were trying to block it. tones
Pepsi
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,034
SCOTUS: Is It Really Over?
the cases for Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski currently show that the Supreme Court has denied their respective stay requests, yet show nothing about denying their request for Certorari.
Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.
The Justices denied the “stay’ but have retained the “certori.” It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College “elects” him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.
Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.
Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.
The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.
"As far as I know–and I very much could be wrong–the applications for stay in both the Wrotnowski and Donofrio case essentially asked the Court two questions: First, whether the Court would consider the applications for stay as a petition for writ of certiorari, and second, whether the Court would grant that petition for writ of certiorari and agree to hear the case at hand on its merits. In Bush v. Gore, for example, the same sort of process was taken, with an application for stay filed first and subsequently treated by the Court as a petition for certiorari in order for the case to be heard from there. That’s why most Election Law casebooks have two separate opinions — one for whether the stay should be considered a petition for certiorari, and another for the petition itself.
In the Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases, those applications for stay–the ones asking the Court to consider them as petitions for writ of certiorari–were denied. Therefore, as far as I know, there is no petition for writ of certiorari to live on in perpetuity in either case. Thus, the Donofrio case, in its current form, is dead in the water. As is the Wrotnowski case."
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1944
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
the cases for Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski currently show that the Supreme Court has denied their respective stay requests, yet show nothing about denying their request for Certorari.
Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.
The Justices denied the “stay’ but have retained the “certori.” It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College “elects” him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.
Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.
Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.
The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.
"As far as I know–and I very much could be wrong–the applications for stay in both the Wrotnowski and Donofrio case essentially asked the Court two questions: First, whether the Court would consider the applications for stay as a petition for writ of certiorari, and second, whether the Court would grant that petition for writ of certiorari and agree to hear the case at hand on its merits. In Bush v. Gore, for example, the same sort of process was taken, with an application for stay filed first and subsequently treated by the Court as a petition for certiorari in order for the case to be heard from there. That’s why most Election Law casebooks have two separate opinions — one for whether the stay should be considered a petition for certiorari, and another for the petition itself.
In the Wrotnowski and Donofrio cases, those applications for stay–the ones asking the Court to consider them as petitions for writ of certiorari–were denied. Therefore, as far as I know, there is no petition for writ of certiorari to live on in perpetuity in either case. Thus, the Donofrio case, in its current form, is dead in the water. As is the Wrotnowski case."
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1944
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
Last edited:
The Grinning Maniac
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 178
This is a waste of time. Why does anyone care about this? This is really grasping at straws. Even if through some technicality, he were "ineligible" for the office...what happens then? McCain gets the office? Biden?
Seriously people...what in the world are you hoping for? Is there some clause that states in the event that someone is declared ineligable post-election, any person with the name "Ron Paul" shall be elected automatically?
The next President will be a douchebag. It is inevitable. There are better battles to be fighting. Throwing eggs at your local DEA office would be a more worthy pursuit than this nonsense.
Seriously people...what in the world are you hoping for? Is there some clause that states in the event that someone is declared ineligable post-election, any person with the name "Ron Paul" shall be elected automatically?
The next President will be a douchebag. It is inevitable. There are better battles to be fighting. Throwing eggs at your local DEA office would be a more worthy pursuit than this nonsense.
I don't think the constitution is nonsense. What I'm hoping for is whatever process is constitutionally legal, period. Admittedly, I'd like to see someone I could respect in the office, someone that represents the integrity, honesty, and acumen I think the office and the country deserve. We all know that's not going to happen, but I can still use the constitution to slow down the downhill spiral. Further, I really can't have much respect for an opinion such as yours, heck with the constitution if it doesn't serve my immediate purpose.
Similar threads
