RangerDave wrote:
Khross wrote:
I didn't make a single post about the Eligibility Question until Obama's lawyers argued that U.S. Citizens has no standing to vet their elected officials. Then I got immensely interested and watched Barack Obama's lawyers give the Democratic Party and the Republican Party more control over our elections than I thought possible.
I don't recall exactly when you started posting on the subject, but your arguments were definitely not solely about standing, at least not at first. You frequently engaged on the underlying substantive points as well. Now, maybe you were just playing devil's advocate, but you were very clearly in the "it's a reasonable line of inquiry" camp.
Actually, I simply said ...
"It's a reasonable line of inquiry, because Stanley Ann Dunham could not legally confer citizenship at the time of his birth. She had not lived the preceding 5 years on US soil, and thus her ability to confer citizenship on the natural son of a foreign national is questionable according to the US law that affected Obama's birth."
That's sum total of my engagement on the substantive points. I engaged the stupidity of the Obama NOT ponying up the following:
1. The Hospital Record of Birth
2. The Hawaii State Long-Form Birth Certificate
I have issues with him not providing both of those, as any claims they are not available are patently false. And perpetuating that particular falsehood has no value in this argument, as far as I can tell, because they would end the discussion once and for all.
The issues with the short-form provided are just hilarious and laughable for all sorts of other reasons: wrong counterfeit protection border for the date stamped on the document is probably the best. I suspect that happened because some idiot printed it without getting the right paper stock. Totally not something that probably matters, but it doesn't lead any credibility to this situation.
RangerDave wrote:
Khross wrote:
Since you didn't follow the issue, here's the legal outcome:
Only the nominating party has legal authority to challenge a candidate's standing; only the nominating party can vet that candidate's standing; and if the nominating party says that candidate is eligible, neither the Federal Government in general; the Senate, House, and DOJ specifically; nor other approved candidates in the election can challenge their eligibility.
Can you point me to the case(s) with that holding regarding Congress and other approved candidates? Also, if you happen to know of any cases holding that electors and/or the opposing Party lack standing, I'd appreciate pointers to those as well. I lost interest in the cases years ago, but my understanding is that whether or not Congress, opposing candidates, opposing Parties and electors have standing remain open questions.
Opposing Parties and Candidates were decided in Keyes v. Bowen, wherein the Supreme Court denied appeals and the lower Court determined that other parties and candidates did not have standing to request the necessary verification documents. Both Alan Keyes (as Candidate) and the American Independent Party were specifically denied standing in that case.
Citizens in general were handled through all of Orly Taitz's lunacy.
The one case that still remains totally baffling is Archibald v. Department of Justice, since the FOIA request was denied on questionable grounds and Archibald's suit for compliance was denied.
_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
