tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post9176186594636824445..comments2024-03-24T23:41:23.944-07:00Comments on Talk Wisdom: An End Times Explanation: What is Happening in America and Why?Christinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-82187575786587304072009-10-29T20:58:44.169-07:002009-10-29T20:58:44.169-07:00JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IM...<i>JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.<br /><br />This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.<br /><br />Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position. <br /><br />The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.<br /><br />This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.<br /><br />THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR<br /><br />The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of “natural born citizen”.<br /><br />But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition. <br /><br />Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.<br /><br />Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:<br /><br />C. Quo Warranto Claims…<br /><br /><br />The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.<br /><br />Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.</i><br />/quote<br /><br />Just this evening, when I told my husband about this ruling (before I read Mr. Donofrio's take on it), my husband said, "the truth will come out...eventually."<br /><br />That is true. The truth usually does come out. I just hope and pray that the truth is revealed sooner - rather than later - so that Obama and his evil cohorts only have a limited amount of time to do any more damage against our nation!Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-25003453573820939272009-10-29T20:58:10.433-07:002009-10-29T20:58:10.433-07:00Mya,
Thank you for your comment and for sharing y...Mya,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment and for sharing your concerns about the Barnett vs. Obama eligibility for POTUS lawsuit. It does appear to be a setback, but according to Leo Donofrio of <a href="http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/judge-carter-the-writ-of-quo-warranto-must-be-brought-within-the-district-of-columbia-because-president-obama-holds-office-within-that-district/" rel="nofollow">Natural Born Citizen</a> blog, the ruling opens the door to have the complaint against Obama's citizenship done via auo Warranto in the proper venue - the DC District Court.<br /><br />Here is a copy of the post at "Natural Born Citizen":<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br /> <i>Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”<br />I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today. It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.<br /><br />POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.<br /><br />Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.<br /><br />The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.<br /><br />QUO WARRANTO<br /><br />Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts - Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.<br /><br />There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.<br /><br />The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.<br /><br />Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial. <br /><br />Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.<br /><br />The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.<br /><br />Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.</i><br /><br />(con't next comment)Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-27592986113417632472009-10-29T18:46:57.408-07:002009-10-29T18:46:57.408-07:00We are in this sorry state due to spirtual apathy....We are in this sorry state due to spirtual apathy.The world is coming apart at the seams and looking for a positve spin on things does not change reality as anon and millions of lukewarmers would love to be true.Banett V Obama was dismissed today.As noted in essays over at IO Blog months ago this would end with Orly one way or another.It is over.Obama declared a National Emgency last week and NY declared one for their state today.Martail Law is coming soon. Type in open thread at IO Blog and see for yourself if those comments form the past yeat have come true or not. http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01552547196152511043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-78426232254675575962009-10-29T12:35:30.102-07:002009-10-29T12:35:30.102-07:00To quote "anonymous at October 29, 2009 12:14...To quote "anonymous at October 29, 2009 12:14 PM PDT":<br /><br /><i>"All of your efforts are exhausted into putting out more of the truth with a negative tone."</i><br /><br />That has to win for one of the most oxymoronic sentences that I have ever read!<br /><br />Obviously, you are looking for that kind of blog that doesn't preach the bad news of each person's sin problem along with the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Also, the books of Jude and Revelation certainly don't hide the negativity of rejecting Christ as Lord and Savior.<br /><br />You seem to indicate here that you know me? Then why be secretive? Tell me your real name. Posting anonymously is quite cowardly - IMO.<br /><br />Have a nice day!Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-60557548411440429952009-10-29T12:14:47.102-07:002009-10-29T12:14:47.102-07:00Sweetie, don't you get tired? Don't you kn...Sweetie, don't you get tired? Don't you know that God is in control? All of your efforts are exhausted into putting out more of the truth with a negative tone. Think about it: your message will be heard better if you just set your attitude where even the opposing side will be more willing to hear it. God loves you and He sees how much work you put into spreading the word, however there is a time where we just have to take a step back and reflect, and yes, sometimes let the stubborn ones fall behind. It is not up to you to save the world. It's a matter of faith, which the majority of the world these days are lacking in. Their false gods are leading them into a pit of hell, which they live in this very day. It's a proven fact that nobody listens when it is "screamed" at them. Instead, try a softer approach - an approach where your opposing viewers will actually see your light - see Jesus' light that shines through you. <br /><br />You may delete this comment. I just wanted to send you a little message, Christine. You're a wonderful woman who is wasting her energy on negativity - not "spreading negativity"---but the one and inflection comes off a bit too strong for those weak in their faith.<br /><br />God bless you and your family and I hope you are doing great! <br /><br />Love and blessings always, <br />AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com