Posts
"Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot: Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008)[15]."
There is a HUGE difference in challenging the right for someone to RUN for president, versus challenging their right to BE president. These prior rulings DO NOT APPLY now that Barack Obama has been elected. Assuming the challenges have been changed from RUNNING for president to BEING president, it should be a whole new ballgame in the supreme court.
5 comments:
A huge difference? Elaborate, but using relevant legal arguments, please.
-- Citizen Cane
(OT-sorry)
Weblog Awards 2008:
It's the PUMA Blogs vs. the OBOT blogs. And PUMAs need your help!!
It takes only a minute. It's easy!
Vote Here:
http://pumaparty.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6037
Thank you so much!
Have a wonderful day!
Citizen Cane.
I think I explained it.
Must you continue this wishful-thinking red herring?
At most, it's a technicality. The legal theory that defeated the eligibility argument for the one will doubtlessly be the same for the other.
It's over. It was over months ago. Move on.
Barack Obama is completely botching the handling of the Credit Card Industry. Irrespective of what he may ultimately do, he let millions of people down when they needed him most by letting the Credit Card companies run roughshod for several months or longer.
His policies actually caused the FDIC to put additional pressure on banks forcing them to do the opposite of what they should have been doing.
Daily-Protest.com
Post a Comment