I didn't say it was OK now did I??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 05:43 Subject: Re: SCOTUS SOUTER TELLS OBAMA TO PRODUCE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DECEMBER 1
So it's ok with you if they throw out the Constitution because Loony Liberals have complained about 2000 for so long? On Nov 12, 2:41 pm, Cold Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you are right. They will "toss" it. It may also have something to > do with something that happened a few elections ago. Just a guess. > > CW > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "KeithInTampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 05:25 > Subject: Re: SCOTUS SOUTER TELLS OBAMA TO PRODUCE BIRTH CERTIFICATE > DECEMBER > > 1 > > Hello CW!! > > I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean, (and in all actuality, I > have been goofing off a bit this afternoon!!) but I did go back in and > read counsel Peter Berg's Amended Complaint, as well as Judge > Surrick's Order dismissing the Complaint, most of the Petitioner's > Petition for Writ, and a couple of cases that both the lower court and > Berg cites. > > Although I don't necessarily agree with it, I completely understand > Judge Surrick's reasoning, that Berg does not have standing to bring > this suit. It comes down to the tenets the Supremes defined and > described back about ten or twelve years ago in Lujan v. Defenders of > Wildlife, and Berg cannot bring an action based upon potential harm, > on behalf of voters. Berg, aware that he lacked standing, attempted > to frame the Complaint as a Section 1983/1985 suit, claiming that he > had dedicated billable hours as well as campaign contributions toward > the Democrat Party, and that the DNC as well as "Campaign Obama" were > perpetrating a fraud because they were aware of (then) Senator Obama's > constitutional disqualification. > > I still believe that Berg is correct in his assumption that Senator > Obama is constitutionally unqualified, but I sure don't see the > Supremes entertaining this matter based on the Petition for Writ > before them. It crossed my mind that Berg should have maybe > attempted to do this as a class action, on and behalf of the citizens > of Pennsylvania.....That might have worked. > > At any rate, I go back to what I wrote yesterday or a couple of days > ago, (and anytime I have ever tried to second guess the Court, or any > federal agency, I am usually wrong!) but I just don't see the Court > doing anything but tossing this and putting it in the Congress' > lap.... > > On Nov 12, 2:37 pm, Cold Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "KeithInTampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:10 > > Subject: Re: SCOTUS SOUTER TELLS OBAMA TO PRODUCE BIRTH CERTIFICATE > > DECEMBER > > > 1 > > > You have spent much more time and research on this than I have...... > > > Why do you that is Keith? > > > CW- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
