JustiaGate

[hypocritexposer]

......In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.


In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator's citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator's short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

Meanwhile, at the "Supreme Court Center" of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words "Minor V. Happersett" along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations. And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

 

[Steve]

it seems the courts new argument to any controversial case is to say the plaintiffs lack standing... yet in numerous cases in the past the aclu and other liberals were able to find some distantly linked plaintiff and proceed to use to use the courts to legislate rights killing laws into effect..

so much so that I do not ever recall standing as the reason for dismissal ever until the 2008 election..

this case needs to be answered if not to get rid of this communist, but to preclude others with divided loyalties from ever holding the Office of President again..

 

[Tam]

I heard last night the lawsuit that the bipartisan Congressional committee filed against Obama and his Administration dealing with the Lybian war and him entering it without their aproval was toss on the, you guessed it, NO STANDING CLAUSE.

SO now the courts are saying if the President bypasses the Congress and does what he damn well pleases including going into war that the tax payers have to fund and the results are the death of a foreign leader terrorist or not THE CONGRESS has no way in the courts to stop him. :shock:

I thought the lawsuits filed by legal US tax payers/voters and Presidentual candidates themselves, to have a unknown jr. senator prove he is qualified to run and hold the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA being toss on the NO STANDING clause was bad enough but this. :shock: Something needs to be done about the courts tossing a bipartisan case filed by the CONGRESS dealing with that same jr. senator turned President taking the US into WAR.

 

[Steve]

The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[14] Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.

The doctrine on standing has recently been modified by the unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States[15] in which it was held an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute[/u] under the Tenth Amendment.

yet over the last 30 years our right to redress was being slowly eroded to the point it is no longer a right..

 

[Steve]

Standing in eligibility challenges

Several courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot.[32] Alternatively, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of the president-elect of the United States to take office may be challenged in Congress.[33]

Some legal scholars assert that, even if eligibility challenges are nonjusticiable in federal courts, and are not undertaken in Congress, there are other avenues for adjudication, such as an action in state court in regard to ballot access

maybe this was always a states right and should have been pursued in a states court?