The Post and Email

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Post and Email

#10526

Post by Northland10 » Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:38 pm

They still think the founders worshipped Vattel because they mentioned him a few times. They mentioned a bunch more philosophers and legal scholars, and their references to Vattel were limited to state sovereignty stuff. They included him on actual laws of nations stuff, not domestic citizenship laws. The recent court case that mentioned Vattel was also about sovereignty not his other stuff.

These idiots might realize this if they read what people were saying about Vattel in debates and communications, instead of relying only on founders mentioning they have the book and it's useful. I have books that are useful even when I disagree hith most if not all of the conclusions.

Granted, they have to rely on the poor defense founders Vattel use and the misreading of Minor because it's all they got.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10527

Post by bob » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:19 pm



:nooo:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44452
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Post and Email

#10528

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:36 pm

And, bob, we expect you to read every page-turning story and report to us after you have sufficiently punished yourself.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9368
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: The Post and Email

#10529

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:12 am

Blocking members of the public from reading is a real profile in courage. Thank you Bob, don't know how I'd do without her tweets* :P

PE Block.JPG

*Do you think she knows that you just have to log out or open a private browser window and you can still see them?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9368
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: The Post and Email

#10530

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:29 pm

Hey!! Save The Date! JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS, in an act of humiliation, reminds everyone in a comment at the Post and Email that on 8-28, they will have FAILED for ELEVEN years!

What an anniversary! What an accomplishment!

REMEMBER 08-28-08 !

How are we going to celebrate here at Fogbow? Jonathan is begging us to celebrate!

:bar:

JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS
Monday, July 8, 2019 at 7:51 AM
Message posted on White House and DOJ websites today:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/you ... 54e996efd1

REMEMBER 08-28-08 !

Next month will mark the 11th year that Nancy Pelosi, second in line to be President, committed treason by forging the passport of an unidentified foreign operative (UFO) and islamic infiltraitor, narrative Barack Hussein Obama II, on 08-28-08: https://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

Nancy Pelosi should be in jail for treason, and yet our U.S. Government allows her to oppose President Trump in defending our faithfully neglected southern border et al, and still remain second in line to be President as U.S. Speaker of the House! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... es-treason

Hillary RICO Clinton was allowed by our U.S. Government to run as America’s first “natural born Criminal-Citizen” !

Now President Trump has to virtually go it alone in simply getting “Are you a U.S. Citizen” on the 2020 Census because our U.S. Government resists this declaration of citizenship!
>https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... ensus.html
>https://www.teaparty.org/rep-andy-biggs ... eo-371686/

AG Sessions passively allowing a treason-coup to remove Trump’s Office of the President, and retires with a pension in Alabama?

STOP the fail time, START the jail time…or we have no sovereign national boundaries and no sovereign citizenship boundaries!

1. REVOKE FAKE EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 to unmask islamic infiltraitor, Barry Soetoro-Obama II

2. PARDON LTC TERRY LAKIN

3. DOJ COMMIT TO JAIL TIME JUSTICE for The Top 100 coup-treasonists of OBAMAGATE/SPYGATE

No one is above the law INCLUDING THE DOJ and the U.S. Government, or else, we have a MONARCHY OF ANARCHY!

Nancy-Barry-Valerie-Hillary-Comey and 95 other coup-treasonists are the SYMPTOMS; treasonist refusal to uphold enforcement of existing prescribed laws is THE PROBLEM!
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44452
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Post and Email

#10531

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:22 am

And 4.FREEDOM FOR TERRY TRUSSELL!

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9368
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: The Post and Email

#10532

Post by Orlylicious » Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:00 am

:lol: This could start a fun trend, Stern...

And 5. RESTORE ED HALE AND PLAINS RADIO TO THE AIRWAVES COAST-TO-COAST!
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Post and Email

#10533

Post by Northland10 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:54 am

Orlylicious wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:29 pm
Hey!! Save The Date! JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS, in an act of humiliation, reminds everyone in a comment at the Post and Email that on 8-28, they will have FAILED for ELEVEN years!

What an anniversary! What an accomplishment!

REMEMBER 08-28-08 !

How are we going to celebrate here at Fogbow? Jonathan is begging us to celebrate!

:bar:

JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS
Monday, July 8, 2019 at 7:51 AM
Message posted on White House and DOJ websites today:

REMEMBER 08-28-08 !

Next month will mark the 11th year that Nancy Pelosi, second in line to be President, committed treason by forging the passport of an unidentified foreign operative (UFO) and islamic infiltraitor, narrative Barack Hussein Obama II, on 08-28-08: https://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm
Forging a passport? It's hard to take Mr. Mooers seriously when his statement does not even match JB Williams conspiracy write-up in the link. It's sort of sad that I could explain their conspiracy theory better than they can, even without looking at the article.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7043
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10534

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:00 am

Northland10 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:54 am
It's sort of sad that I could explain their conspiracy theory better than they can, even without looking at the article.
it's curious how we (rational people, skeptics, etc.) are annoyed that people propounding strange theories do not bother to try for internal consistency, correlation with known facts and even with their known non-facts.There's no joy in attempting to debunk something that is so clearly horeshit pie sitting in cowshit sauce with a dollop of pigshit on top for decoration.

If they're playing make-believe, they should play make-believe properly!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12369
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10535

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:12 pm

I 'm truly sorry I missed Mr Moers' first stab at irreality. That is, as they say, some next level irreality. The thing of course is that pretty much anyone can and does have these sorts of flights of fantasy, it's the fleshing out thing that takes the work. None of that crowd wants to do any serious work.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10536

Post by bob » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:31 am

P&E: Are There Similarities Between Ilhan Omar and Barack Obama?:
Tom Arnold wrote:MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORES EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY FRAUD

Katie Pavlich and Tucker Carlson just discussed unlawful Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s controversial recent remarks and background.

That one of her marriages was to her own brother.

That she failed to report her situation accurately to the IRS.

Essentially, that she defrauded the U. S. government and Minnesota voters.

Ever question “Barack Hussein Obama’s” eerily-similar bona fides? Then, following that faux news, did you see Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch being interviewed by Sean Hannity? Fitton has found incriminating evidence on “Obama” specifically concerning the Russian scandal going back to September 2016.

The whole bunch of you (not including Mr. Fitton) are frauds, just like Omar and “Obama.” You’re a big part of the reason why we are having a constitutional crisis (and have had one now for over a decade). No guts! Pretend patriots! Fake news (or none at all that you are willing to talk about with your listeners and viewers!). Guilty of misprision?

Shameful, shameful. Betrayal of your fourth-estate government-watchdog responsibilities as journalists. When is this ever going to end? How long will America go on living the lies?
I did not know that Obama married his brother. :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28311
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: The Post and Email

#10537

Post by Foggy » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:48 am

bob wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:31 am
I did not know that Obama married his brother. :roll:
I always forget if it was his Kenyan brother or his Indonesian brother. I know it was his communist brother. :roll:
Every locked door has a key. - Emika Chen

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10538

Post by bob » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:23 pm

P&E: Is Mueller Confused?:
“I’D HAVE TO PASS ON THAT”

Shortly after 8:30 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was sworn in to give much-anticipated testimony to the House Judiciary Committee as to his report provided to the Justice Department which found insufficient evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign conspired with Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

As of 9:21 a.m., Mueller arguably appears confused, outside of the limitations placed on him by the Justice Department to contain his responses to the parameters of the report.

He has often asked that questions be repeated or indicated that he does not comprehend the questions.

[ * * * ]

While speaking with Zebley on several occasions, Chairman Jerrold Nadler asked Mueller to speak more directly into the microphone.

When Rep. Steve Cohen asked Mueller if he knew of any examples where Trump tried to influence then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse himself,” Muller first responded, “I’d have to pass on that.” When Cohen repeated the question, Mueller agreed with what is stated in the report on the issue.

“In America, nobody is above the law,” Cohen vehemently concluded.

At 9:29 a.m., Mueller said he was “not familiar with” the company which procured the “Steele dossier” when asked by Rep. Steve Chabot. Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of the company, Fusion GPS, testified privately to members of Congress in 2017.

To many of Chabot’s questions, Mueller responded, “That’s outside my purview.”

In other instances, Mueller appeared unfamiliar with the contents of the report, and he often stuttered in his responses.

At 9:39 a.m., Rep. Louis Gohmert asked Mueller who wrote the remarks he made on May 29, 2019 in an ad hoc press conference announcing his departure from the Special Counsel role, to which Mueller responded, “I’m not going to get into that.” Gohmert then concluded that Mueller did not write them himself.

[ * * * ]

At 9:43, Gohmert passionately said that Mueller “perpetuated injustice” by investigating Trump for “obstruction of justice” after the campaign was known not to have “colluded” with Russia. To that, after Nadler banged his gavel to mark the end of Gohmert’s time, Mueller gave the response, “I take your question,” which garnered soft laughter from some members of the audience.
This is the fair and unbiased "reportage" that I expect from Rondeau! :roll:

More liveblogging from Rondeau.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10539

Post by bob » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:12 pm

P&E: DNC, Crowdstrike Decline to Release Documents in Butowsky Lawsuits:
DNC REPRESENTED BY PERKINS COIE OF OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE, TRUMP-RUSSIA FAME

On Tuesday Atty. Ty Clevenger, who represents Dallas businessman Ed Butowsky in two federal defamation lawsuits, posted on his blog that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the private company Crowdstrike, which reportedly performed an analysis of the DNC server breached in 2016, refused to produce documents in response to dozens of subpoenas and requests.

[ * * * ]

Crowdstrike is represented by the Tyz Law Group, PC of San Francisco, while the DNC is represented by Perkins Coie, a mega-law firm with 16 U.S. offices and three overseas locations.

[ * * * ]

On the morning of April 27, 2011, then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer, who co-founded Perkins Coie’s “Political Law practice,” told reporters in a closed-door presser that then-Obama personal attorney Judith Corley, also of Perkins Coie, traveled to Honolulu, HI to retrieve two certified copies of Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).

[Usual birther :yankyank: snipped.]

The Post & Email’s subsequent request for an interview with Bauer received no response.
:lol:

And, yes, even Butowsky's Seth-Rich-related defamation suit leads back to the birth certificate!
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 15745
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: The Post and Email

#10540

Post by ZekeB » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:30 pm

They're not recycling this, they're picking through the garbage dump and finding something that was buried four years ago.
Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10541

Post by bob » Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:42 pm

P&E: Breaking: Trump Calls for Investigation into Obama, Hillary Clinton:
“LET’S LOOK INTO OBAMA THE WAY THEY LOOKED AT ME”

In remarks broadcast on Fox News at 4:30 p.m. EDT Friday, in remarks concerning a “safe third country” agreement with Guatemala for asylum applicants, President Trump criticized “the Democrats” for opposing his agenda and continuing to “investigate,” referring to the now-defunct Russia “collusion” probe.

* * *

In early 2011, Trump called for the White House to release Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate to prove he was constitutionally eligible to serve as president. On April 27, 2011, the White House posted an image it said represented Obama’s original birth record from the Hawaii Department of Health.

[Usual birther :yankyank: snipped.]
Ironically, just a few days ago various commenters were consoling each other by saying the current president would need a second term before starting to investigate Obama.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10542

Post by bob » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:32 am

P&E: Can a State Amend Presidential Eligibility Requirements?:
IF YES, WHY NOT ASK FOR A “BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”

On Tuesday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law requiring presidential primary candidates to release five years’-worth of income-tax returns to be eligible to appear on the ballot for the March primaries.

According to The Los Angeles Times, the law will not apply to presidential candidates in the general election in November 2020.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2017 on the basis that it could begin a process whereby states could ask for increasingly more information from candidates such as “certified birth certificates,” according to The New York Times.

[Usual birther :yankyank: snipped.]
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12369
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10543

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:57 am

Since Presidential eligibility requirements come from the Constitution a state CAN'T change them any more than they can for any other Federal eligibility requirements. Are CA state eligibility requirements set in their constitution or by statute?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10544

Post by bob » Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:24 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:57 am
Since Presidential eligibility requirements come from the Constitution a state CAN'T change them any more than they can for any other Federal eligibility requirements. Are CA state eligibility requirements set in their constitution or by statute?
1. "It depends." Eligibility requirements for federal offices are set by the U.S. Constitution. For state offices, for some it is a mixture of the California Constitution and the Election Code or Government Code or both (that is, "by statute"); for others, just by statute.

2. This new California law, strictly speaking, is not an eligibility requirement: it governs placement only on the presidential primary ballot; write-in candidates are still permitted (and could still win); and it doesn't prohibit the parties from nominating whomever for the general election.

Having said that, this law will likely be challenged and struck down.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44452
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Post and Email

#10545

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:45 pm

bob wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:24 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:57 am
Since Presidential eligibility requirements come from the Constitution a state CAN'T change them any more than they can for any other Federal eligibility requirements. Are CA state eligibility requirements set in their constitution or by statute?
1. "It depends." Eligibility requirements for federal offices are set by the U.S. Constitution. For state offices, for some it is a mixture of the California Constitution and the Election Code or Government Code or both (that is, "by statute"); for others, just by statute.

2. This new California law, strictly speaking, is not an eligibility requirement: it governs placement only on the presidential primary ballot; write-in candidates are still permitted (and could still win); and it doesn't prohibit the parties from nominating whomever for the general election.


Having said that, this law will likely be challenged and struck down.
I agree. And I can see the birther cases being cited as precedent. By both sides -- and the courts.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10546

Post by bob » Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:22 pm

P&E Presidential Eligibility is not a “Racist” Issue.

(If that's the hole you're digging, first step is to stop digging.) Continuing:
“WE THE PEOPLE” MUST QUALIFY CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE

Shortly after the opening of Fox News Channel’s “Outnumbered” at 12:00 EDT on Wednesday, Democratic strategist Jessica Tarlov, in a vehement repudiation of Donald Trump’s recent remarks about the city of Baltimore and its elected congressman, Elijah Cummings, declared, “A ‘birther’ means that you are a racist.”

[ * * * ]

The mainstream media and Obama sycophants coined the term “birther” as a pejorative to single out anyone questioning Obama’s life narrative or constitutional eligibility given the numerous conflicting reports as to his birthplace, when he lived in Indonesia, and why no paper documentation as to his origins appears to exist.

[ * * * ]

The forgery of government documents is not a “racist” issue, but rather, a federal felony.

Tarlov’s conclusion is intellectually dishonest. It is not “racist” to question any candidate’s eligibility for the office he or she seeks. Since at least 1916, presidential eligibility has been a subject of public discourse, as it was in the case of Charles Evans Hughes,[ who was born in the United States to British-citizen parents and challenged Woodrow Wilson that year.

Was Breckinridge Long, a white man, motivated by “racism” when he questioned the eligibility of Hughes, another white man?* Nearly a century later in 2008, was Jonathan Turley “racist” when he wrote an essay probing whether or not Arizona Sen. John McCain was eligible to the presidency due to his birth in Panama? Absolutely not.

Presidential eligibility is disassociated from race, gender, ethnicity, creed, religious beliefs, and any other personal identifier. It concerns only the requirements set forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

[ * * * ]

Questioning a candidate’s eligibility is not racist; rather, it is what all concerned citizens should do, from considering who should serve as members of a city Council, mayor, state legislator, governor, Congressman, U.S. Senator, and the president. Those elected to government must qualify for the positions they seek in respect of ordinances, state statutes, and federal law. Political parties have refused to vet candidates, but it was always the citizens’ responsibility to hold their government accountable.

Just as we want only U.S. citizens to vote in our elections, so should we also demand that all candidates for office meet the constitutional qualifications for service, which are few but hard-and-fast. In the case of the president, at least one candidate was disqualified for being under the required age of 35; others have been stricken from primary ballots for having been born outside of the United States consistent with a basic understanding of the term “natural born Citizen.”

If Obama or anyone else serving as president were born outside of the United States, his or her constitutional eligibility would be in doubt. As Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, his eligibility was openly questioned at The Washington Post, The Dallas Morning News, and other mainstream outlets. Were those challenging his qualifications labeled “racist?”

If a person is born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens, does that person qualify as a “natural born Citizen” within the framework of the Founders’ intent, as expressed in John Jay’s letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787?

According to the strictest interpretation of “natural born Citizen,” former diplomat Alan Keyes is most likely eligible to serve as president. Conversely, if Andrew Yang’s parents, described as “immigrants” in his Wikipedia biography, were not naturalized at the time of his birth in Schenectady, NY, he is not eligible. Elizabeth Warren is very likely eligible, while Kamala Harris’s eligibility is in serious question despite her birth in Oakland, CA.**

Should Kanye West ever choose to seek the presidency, it appears he is eligible. Sen. Mazie Hirono, however, is not, based on her biography. Sen. Tim Scott is likely eligible, while former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a naturalized citizen, is not.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address the question, We the People must. Do we want the lowest standard of allegiance in the nation’s chief executive or anyone else serving in public office, or the highest?
Do We The People want to apply the actual law, or the law as imagined by racists and as applied to lies invented by racists? :think:


* Long was a known xenophobe, so, yes, Rondeau. :roll:

** Birthers aren't racist!, scream Rondeau while she literally "questions" the eligibility of three people of color. :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Post and Email

#10547

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:31 pm

That reminds me of the 60's line, " Some of my best friends are negroes."

https://founders.archives.gov/

John Jay says the President should be a natural born citizen, but with no hyphen! Horrors!

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7043
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10548

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:44 pm

So Rondeau has a novel argument to explain away her racism:
out goes some of my best friends are black
… in comes some of my worst enemies are white!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26813
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Post and Email

#10549

Post by bob » Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:10 pm

P&E: Why States Cannot Sue Trump in District Court:
Oren Long wrote:A CLOSER LOOK AT ARTICLE III

When the Founders wrote Article III of the Constitution they specified three types of cases that can ONLY originate with and be heard by the Supreme Court, including cases where a State sues the United States (Federal Government). They clearly did not want District and/or Appellate Courts, possibly subject to personal/local biases or prejudices, hearing cases of such national importance.

This is important in light of the many lawsuits filed against President Trump and his administration in Federal District Court, by various States, over everything from Muslim Immigration, the border, Sanctuary Cities, DACA, Net Neutrality, and other issues.

Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, “In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court SHALL (emphasis added) have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction. In all the other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact . . . “.

The above CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD! In legal parlance, it’s called “Improper Venue,” meaning that Federal District Courts have no “Standing” to hear the case. Given that President Trump is the ‘head’ of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump or his Administration is, in fact, suing the Federal Government. Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.
:brickwallsmall:
In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any “Inferior Court” (Founders’ Constitutional definition, Article III, Section One) ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him. IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, the President’s orders stand.

Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these endless “State vs. Trump” cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump’s Executive Orders would stand. AND the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!
:brickwallsmall:
I asked an attorney about this and he told me that this Section of Article III was negated by the Eleventh Amendment. BS! The Eleventh Amendment was written to cover an oversight by the Founders when they wrote Article III (the judiciary). The Eleventh Amendment covers ONLY cases where a citizen of one State sues another State and/or where a foreigner sues one or more States, but not the Federal Government.

That said, I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court, in some long-past case, unilaterally ruled that Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two somehow, magically, mysteriously does not really mean what it so clearly DOES mean. If so, it is long past time to re-visit the issue.

Why does the President not know this? He is relying on legal advice from his legal team who either don’t know or don’t want him to know. In either case, it’s bad advice. I am reminded of an old saying, “When you control what a man knows, you control what he thinks.”

Personally, I have long suspected that the President’s legal team may have closet Never Trumpers posing as supporters. As Sherlock Holmes so famously said, “When all other possibilities are eliminated, the only one remaining, however improbable, is probably the truth.”
I have no idea who "Oren Long" is (and whether that's a pseudonym), but this is dumb even for the other wannabe lawyers (e.g., Laity) that dwell at the P&E.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44452
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: The Post and Email

#10550

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:05 pm

Why did I bother to go to law school when I could have just made up whatever law I liked?

All those wasted years. All that wasted money.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”