|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 1, 2008 16:06:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Dec 1, 2008 16:38:39 GMT -5
I was about to post that.
Seems that Google likes censorship.
There's a twin case which is Wrotnowski V. Bysiewicz, esentially is similar to Donofrio's lawsuit, but instead of suing NJ's SOS Wrotnowski is suing CT's SOS.
Wrotnoski case has been resumited to Justice Scalia (there wasn't much option it was Scalia or Thomas) after ex ACLU attorney, Justice Ginsburg rejected it. Let's pray it Scalia accepts it.
Abdiel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 1, 2008 17:26:25 GMT -5
The UN vs. the US Constitution by Larry Pratt What most Americans do not realize is how much of the U.S. Constitution has already been supplanted by the UN Charter. I am indebted to Dr. Herb Titus, a preeminent constitutional lawyer, and the Liberty Committee (consisting of a number of conservative representatives) which commissioned his work, for the analysis that follows. The UN Charter is not a treaty, in spite of bearing the name of treaty. Actually the UN Charter is a constitution. www.gunowners.org/op0130.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 1, 2008 17:42:51 GMT -5
www.gunowners.org/op0551.htmThe Imperial Judiciary by Larry Pratt Does the Constitution provide for judicial supremacy through the process of judicial review? Attorney Edwin Vieira, J.D. answers with an emphatic "No!" in his book Imperial Judiciary. Vieira makes a convincing argument that the Supreme Court (and other courts as well) have pulled off the equivalent of a coup d'etat. They believe, and too many Americans believe with them, that an opinion of the Supreme Court is a part of the Constitution. If the opinion contradicts the Constitution, then the Constitution, according to this view, has been amended. Overlooked is the simple fact that an unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court is not worthy of respect and should be ignored by all other officials who have taken the same oath of office taken by the judges. If there are competing interpretations of the Constitution among officials in different branches of government, "We the People" are to decide the issue at the ballot box. Consider that the Supreme Court has the authority to make decisions only in those areas We the People have delegated. A look at Article III of the Constitution does not reveal a heavy work load for the Supremes: the court has original jurisdiction in cases involving states as well as diplomats. All other cases are brought on appeals, and if the lower courts are eliminated by Congress which has that authority, that ends the discussion. The Congress does not need to send a constitutional amendment to the states when the Court makes an unconstitutional decision. There is nothing to amend, just correct by legislation (or impeachment) removing jurisdiction. No jurisdiction, no cases, no bad decisions. What is stopping that from happening? The Congress. They have not used the power they have. Why? Well, two reasons. One is that "We the People" have not demanded that the members of Congress act. A second reason is that until We the People act, the Congress enjoys passing the buck to the Supreme Court saying, "We have to do this because the Court said so." This charade will continue until We the People make it happen. If the Court can indeed amend the Constitution with a five-to-four majority, are we to believe that the Court can re-amend by the same vote of five judges the next time around? You have to agree that, even though this is not in the Constitution, such power is more efficient than getting two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to concur. The only problem seems to be that the Supremes are acting outside the law. No wonder they want us to believe in an evolving Constitution (as long as they are the agents of evolution). One of the excuses for the audacious claim to amending the Constitution by judicial fiat is reference to foreign law and international morality. This, of course, can mean anything a judge wishes to say it means. Who is to interpret what foreign law? That of Cuba? France? Iran? Whose morality? Kofi Anan and the UN kleptocrats? Or perhaps the thugs ruling China? Yet the Supreme Court has used this fiction to attack the capital punishment laws of the states with absolutely no authority to rule in this area. Again, the Congress needs to strip the ability to bring such cases to the lower courts (if not eliminating those courts altogether!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Dec 1, 2008 19:29:46 GMT -5
I've heard there are now 6 court cases against Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Dec 1, 2008 22:47:40 GMT -5
There have been like a dozen lawsuits, but just three have arrived to the supreme court, and just one IS GOING to be debated by justices the 5th December, that's Donofrio's Lawsuit.. Apparently, for the serious lawyer there isn't much doubt that Obama IS NOT natural born citizen. This blog article explains why, with a lot of detail, and serious references. It also explains why McCain MIGHT BE and why he might be not. And just to confirm what you knew already, ABC admits bias in media coverage. Abdiel. |
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Dec 1, 2008 23:09:07 GMT -5
Sure AB - Abc admits now that the election is past.
|
|
