WaterMan Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 How do you start a thread about Chrysler, but still all you have to talk about is Obama and Hawaii? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 How do you start a thread about Chrysler, but still all you have to talk about is Obama and Hawaii? Please feel free to go back to the beginning and read my original post. Part of the Chrysler dealer challenge will be a Quo Warranto case which will directly challenge Obama's constitutional eligibility to be POTUS. I have said many times that I do not think he is eligible REGARDLESS of where he was born, as he would not be a natural born citizen that The Constitution requires. I have also said many times that his refusal to produce an actual birth certificate - which was all that was required to instantly quell many of the lawsuits - is puzzling. Rather than do that, he has spent millions to not do so. Why? What's the big deal? It did not bother me at all at first, but as the litigation mounted, I became curious. As did Lou Dobbs. Any good attorney - and the two that I know about on this case are excellent - are going to throw every potential aspect into the case. Like it or not, this question is going to be part of the litigation, so you might as well get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Please feel free to go back to the beginning and read my original post. Part of the Chrysler dealer challenge will be a Quo Warranto case which will directly challenge Obama's constitutional eligibility to be POTUS. I have said many times that I do not think he is eligible REGARDLESS of where he was born, as he would not be a natural born citizen that The Constitution requires. I have also said many times that his refusal to produce an actual birth certificate - which was all that was required to instantly quell many of the lawsuits - is puzzling. Rather than do that, he has spent millions to not do so. Why? What's the big deal? It did not bother me at all at first, but as the litigation mounted, I became curious. As did Lou Dobbs. Any good attorney - and the two that I know about on this case are excellent - are going to throw every potential aspect into the case. Like it or not, this question is going to be part of the litigation, so you might as well get used to it. Ah so a company is grasping at anything they can to keep their money is what I'm gathering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Please feel free to go back to the beginning and read my original post. Part of the Chrysler dealer challenge will be a Quo Warranto case which will directly challenge Obama's constitutional eligibility to be POTUS. I have said many times that I do not think he is eligible REGARDLESS of where he was born, as he would not be a natural born citizen that The Constitution requires. I have also said many times that his refusal to produce an actual birth certificate - which was all that was required to instantly quell many of the lawsuits - is puzzling. Rather than do that, he has spent millions to not do so. Why? What's the big deal? It did not bother me at all at first, but as the litigation mounted, I became curious. As did Lou Dobbs. Any good attorney - and the two that I know about on this case are excellent - are going to throw every potential aspect into the case. Like it or not, this question is going to be part of the litigation, so you might as well get used to it. You can get as fired up about it as you want, there ain't no way that a court is going to make a determination whether Obama is "eligible" to sit as president of the United States, let alone what the remedy is if it was ever determined that he isn't. No way. Edited December 14, 2009 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 You can get as fired up about it as you want, there ain't no way that a court is going to make a determination whether Obama is "eligible" to sit as president of the United States, let alone what the remedy is if it was ever determined that he isn't. No way. I Well, then I guess you're not a "good attorney" Furd. Should I notify the state bar? Seeing as how it was US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts who swore President Obama into office in the first place, something tells me this lawsuit ain't going anywhere on based on this frivolous "legal" argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Seeing as how it was US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts who swore President Obama into office in the first place, something tells me this lawsuit ain't going anywhere on based on this frivolous "legal" argument. And the Congress confirmed the election results. These lawsuits will fail due to one or more of the following: 1) political question; 2) no standing; 3) no damages (goes to standing); 4) no remedy. Perhaps Congress passes some legislation as a result of this folderol, that will apply to future elections. But Obama is not going to be compelled to do anything. Nothing that he has done is going to be unwound. Nothing is going to effect Obama's position as President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) And the Congress confirmed the election results. These lawsuits will fail due to one or more of the following: 1) political question; 2) no standing; 3) no damages (goes to standing); 4) no remedy. Perhaps Congress passes some legislation as a result of this folderol, that will apply to future elections. But Obama is not going to be compelled to do anything. Nothing that he has done is going to be unwound. Nothing is going to effect Obama's position as President. I'd also throw in mootness. The proper time to challenge Obama's qualification as president was likely sometime before he was sworn in. But clearly ladyhawk knows more about the law than either of us. What is it that he/she does for a living again? Because if the answer to that question is "constitutional law professor," then she and President Obama have something in common. Edited December 14, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Obama's citizenship = Ladyhawke's Manbearpig. Ironic, really that he/she's so hung up on Gore and Co. making such a big deal about what some say is a non-issue and yet keeps bringing this crap up over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted December 15, 2009 Author Share Posted December 15, 2009 Ah so a company is grasping at anything they can to keep their money is what I'm gathering. That was not my point at all - and you know that. good attorneys bring up every issue. Eligibility will bean aspect of one of the lawsuits. You can ridicule me all you want, but all I have done is inform you of what is about to happen. Your local news will not do be doing that any time soon. The crux of the appeal (as separate from the eligibility challenge) will most likely be that The Constitution protects private contracts. (It really does, perhaps some of you should actually read it.) The Chrysler dealers were dissolved by our government in some sort of forced bankruptcy fire sale to Fiat. It was wrong. For good or naught, it should have been legally played out - not forced by the Obama Administration. What contracts are you a party to? Do you own your house? How would you feel if the government suddenly took it over and gave it to a company in Columbia? When are many of you going to get past your political biases and realize that our country and way of life is seriously at stake? Don't bother answering, I know it will only be when they finally are personally attacking you. Live with that, if you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 According to this, the government bought Chrysler out many times over with all that bailout money, based on what Chrysler is/was worth in dollars. http://blog.ockhamresearch.com/index.php/2...th-that-little/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share Posted January 10, 2010 As I initially reported, one lawsuit has been filed. Filed: Rule 60 Motion To Reconsider on Behalf of 21 Rejected Chrysler Dealers. Likewise, I will report the Quo Warranto case when filed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 What contracts are you a party to? Do you own your house? How would you feel if the government suddenly took it over and gave it to a company in Columbia? The Supreme Court has made it plain that in effect we all live in our houses on government suffrage by it's support of the use of eminent domain as a method of increasing the local tax base, which they have equated to "public good". So your hypothesis wouldn't exactly be unprecedented,would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 As I initially reported, one lawsuit has been filed. Filed: Rule 60 Motion To Reconsider on Behalf of 21 Rejected Chrysler Dealers. Likewise, I will report the Quo Warranto case when filed. I'm sorry but you are bat shit crazy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'm sorry but you are bat manure crazy! Correct!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 As I initially reported, one lawsuit has been filed. Filed: Rule 60 Motion To Reconsider on Behalf of 21 Rejected Chrysler Dealers. Likewise, I will report the Quo Warranto case when filed. I'm not going to read through the whole thing. But its a motion for reconsideration, which means that the court has already ruled against the movants in some respect. Motions for reconsideration are almost never granted, particularly if they are based upon an argument (like the motion is here) that the court made a mistake. Court's rarely ever admit that they were wrong. Next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Rather than do that, he has spent millions to not do so. millions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.