What I do not understand is why can not the Supreme Court make a determination on the definition of NBC and let it go at that.

The issue is one of “energy.” That is, the Judiciary does not have the power to bring cases unto itself to be tried; that’d be a fatal fiasco in this republic.

Further, in order to get the issue to be considered, the correct petition would need to be lodged with the right questions being asked and the right remedy(ies) being provided.

-Phil

This is why the term NBC is preferred to a complex statement.

That would certainly spur on the acceptance of QW in DC and the acceptance by the average person of the correct definition with more understanding of what is happening. It should cause an acceleration of the entire issue through the courts with final removal.

1. Congress, alone, has the constitutional priveledge to relieve a healthy and competent President of his duties.
2. In one case, if of a criminal nature, by way of impeachment.
3. In another, if ineligible (usurper), congress has passed legislation that allows for the US and/or DC AGs to file suit accordingly.
4. In cases of incapacitance or death, the constitution itself is quite clear as to the process of succession.

Leo’s contentions that the game changed after the election and then again after the inauguration are quite clear. The various litigators have failed to recognize the evolving constitutional realities and concurrent restraints.

The founding fathers were clever and adamant with their appreciation of the seperation of powers. Perhaps we should acknowledge this republican principle and challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility accordingly.

SFC Noz

“The hard right over the easy wrong”

That will fail for a number of reason, the most obvious reason being that it was filed in New Jersey, and not D.C., as the statute requires.

I know; I was answering another commenter’s question. There will be no quo warranto suit in any court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

RJ

Leo will not be going to court. There is or will not be any lawsuit, at least filed by him. He sent a letter to Holder & Taylor, giving his opinion and views after his research. Your sentence regarding impeachment is correct, however; you misstated Leo’s interpretation. He states the Constitution does not say impeachment is the ONLY way to remove someone in the White House who doesn’t belong there.

Leo also is hinging his whole argument on one thing only:

The British nationality issue. It doesn’t matter whether or not he was born in HI; the BC doesn’t matter; everything else is irrelevant.

To Bob:

SCOTUS has nothing to do with Leo’s opinion. It won’t work, according to quo warranto. Only a suit in DC in federal court.

If you want to make the argument to Chief Justice Roberts that he needs to go swear President Obama in again because he screwed up again, be my guest. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring that a religious text be present, and no court would entertain an argument that President Obama was not properly sworn in because of that.

Donofrio has blogged with Olympian insight that a good lawyer never asks a question whose answer he doesn’t already know. If only Donofrio had aware of the fact Obama’s father was already legally married in Kenya and therefore Obama Sr was unable to pass on British citizenship to the child of bigamous or common-law marriage (ie Obama Jr), then Orly Taitz wouldn’t be quoting Donofrio’s ignorance and exposing herself to his ridicule. Too nice. Too trusting.

“…when she [Orly Taitz] issued the original consent form for the military plaintiffs…”

What Donofrio has skipped here is that it was Donofrio himself who encouraged military personnel and lawyers to come forward through his blog. His written opinion was that the military would have undeniable standing in law. Orly Taitz took Donofrio at his word and organized accordingly. When Donofrio felt that his blogosphere encouragement might be viewed as traitorsphere incitement he backed off real quick and suspended his blog. Leaving Orly Taitz isolated in her foxhole. Soon after Donofrio started pouring in panic-fire onto Orly Taitz’ position. Not so cool. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me…and er…and er…and you’re never gonna fool me agin. Unfortunately: Not.

“…Roberts might have figured the best way to deal with her presence in a classy way…”

Donofrio’s emotions toward SCOTUS have swung wildly on various occasions from insulting SCOTUS as sinister devotees of a secret cult to obsequious flattery with regard to their peerless learning and sagacity. No prizes for guessing that the height of Donofrio’s back depends on whether there is a prospect that SCOTUS might give Donofrio what he has led himself to expect…or not.

What Leo is doing is giving his argument that the DC circuit court is the proper venue.

Taitz is providing a counter argument. We shall see what happens.

But, how about those Tea Parties? I love American reinventing the American Revolution II against British Rule. Irony isn’t?

If SCOTUS lacks original jurisdiction (which it does in this case), then it lacks the authority to issue subpoenas.

Wherefore, please consider and reply of the additional ace in hole (or Justices’s Sleve) if your were to team with “J Ryan” a furiuos Former U S Senator, and victim of bo : so as to use extrinsic and intrinsic Fraud charges vs bo inaddition to use bo’s own Extension of Statute of Limitations Laws against Him, as J Ryan was discriminated against by an “illegal canidate for U S Senate”.?

Wherefore, we may exta “aces and Wild Jokers to Combate corrupt Obstructionalist:

The is your STRAIGHT FLUSH TO SLAM DUNK VICTORY IN QUO WARRENTO…?

Her accounts of meeting Scalia and Roberts are so puzzling. Roberts might have figured the best way to deal with her presence in a classy way was to do exactly as he did.

Scalia is known to be a bit of a wildcat. I don’t understand how he could “not remember her case and my case, Cort’s case” etc, yet he tells her she only needs four votes, “Get four”, and “I’ll hear the case”, but he don’t remember any of these cases. How does that add up? I don’t know. How does he “know” he will hear her case if he doesn’t have a recollection of these cases?

There is an easy answer to this, Leo. [undue sarcasm] I think Berg has already figured her out.

This situation is essentially a human one – not a legal one – since it is wholeheartedly due to lack of courage and responsibility on the part of just about all our elected and appointed officials who SHOULD be the very ones to give relief for such questions. The Catch 22 part is that real evidence is needed … and that evidence is blocked even by those who could and should be the ones to protect the voters from abuse.

I think what Leo is doing now is what seems to be the only logical pathway left AFTER the others have been tried, in trusting and good faith, and failed. I would say also that since even this last resort pathway depends on Congress, it essentially always becomes then a political pathway … again … and one would have to be very naive to ever have had trusted that even Congress would follow the ideals imagined in its very creation.