I don’t know, who will be willing to enforce this
Posted on | January 12, 2011 | 10 Comments
Impeach SJC
Top of Form
COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 19 U. S. 264 (1821)
U.S. Supreme Court
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)
Cohens v. Virginia
19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264
Page 19 U. S. 404
It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.
Answer from Orly:
I don’t know, who will be willing to enforce this. You can write to each and every congressman on the House Committee on the Judiciary and demand investigation. Whether they will do anything, remains to be seen
Comments
10 Responses to “I don’t know, who will be willing to enforce this”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
January 12th, 2011 @ 11:36 am
So far everyone has been enforcing it. You have not yet demonstrated subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, it would be treasonous to allow your birther cases to move forward.
Even Carter recognized that the case could be extremely important, but given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction – no merits discussions could follow.
January 12th, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
what kind of nonsense it is. We had both the Fed question and diversity. How can you say that there was no subject matter jurisdiction? C’mon you are a smart attorney, enough of this nonsense
January 12th, 2011 @ 3:21 pm
Well…I guess the entire country has run out of “jurisdiction”, chum! You see, finally, in this country there is no jurisdiction for discovery of a lousy BC. A $20.00 document that obama knows would reveal something his lawyers claimed in court would “embarass” him!
Corruption to the top. Say hi to LtCol Lakin for me. Obama won’t prove to one of his own subordinates…a decorated officer, that he is in fact legit. That is nothing short of a coward hanging onto power by his fingernails!
It’s also damn disgraceful of the Presidency.
Notice I didn’t say President! That’s because this President is without grace & deceitful about his eligibilty…ie bc. Do you think 60% of Americans deserve the truth? Obviously not, chump.
January 12th, 2011 @ 5:22 pm
If you’re speaking of the “eligibility” cases, presenting a federal question and (as you state) diversity, are not enough to meet “subject matter jurisdiction,” even though those are generally the requirements for being able to have a case heard in federal court.
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court over the nature of a case and the type of remedy demanded.
The requirement that a court have subject matter jurisdiction means that the court can only assume power over a claim that the laws of the jurisdiction authorize it to hear. For example, Congress limited the subject-matter jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court to cases related to taxation; thus, that court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over any other matter.
In order to bring an action in federal court, the plaintiff must find a constitutional or congressional grant of subject matter jurisdiction to allow the federal court to hear the claim. In these cases that simply has not been demonstrated.
Any case must get past that hurdle to move forward.
January 12th, 2011 @ 7:07 pm
Orly, ask Carl Swenson. There is a very small court in DC that nobody knows about. It isn’t talked about. It is like it is the original court of America. maybe that is the right court. He can explain it.
January 12th, 2011 @ 9:41 pm
That’s a good idea, Ro. Carl, along with Sam Sewell, discovered that Fourth Branch of Government than no one else knew about either.
January 13th, 2011 @ 3:44 am
Oh, Lordy! Grrrrrrrrr…! Well, gee, chummly, do you think that this is “cute?” Coming in here and acting like you “own” the place? Huh?
If you’re a real attorney, why don’t you act like one? How? By being a little more helpful to Orly? You post on her site, due to her generosity…does that not deserve some respect? Aren’t you mature enough to know how to “relate” to others, in and out of the legal field?
People like you should be required to take a course, like teachers have to, called: Human Relations! It teaches one how to become more able to relate to others and to function with them in a more positive manner!
And, you know, since Orly came here from a communist nation, she does an amazing job of integrating herself into this American way of life and has learned a lot here! She deserves the help of everyone who posts in here!
And she has a lot to concern herself with…but what do we see you do? Bring up some “squird-lock fumes” that make the eyes water!!! What an anti-Christian attitude!
So it really pisses me off to see a “spoiled sally” like you act like you live on “Mt Olympus” and that you can come in here and think you can “prank her off,” just for “G.P.”!!! Bet me, son!
Personally, I think there’s too damned many rules to follow…which makes it almost impossible to function with the courts any more!
We’ve become too damned “civilized” in some respects! In the 18th century, all wed had to do was: “lock and load!” Now, to correct an “injustice,” we have to allow this establishment to “put us through the wringer,” just to “see” [if] it works? What B.S.!
Orly is a very NICE Lady…and she doesn’t deserve to be “bullied” into responding to anyone who wants her to investigate another “side-bar” of “plabber!” You’re lucky, salmon-man, cause if I owned this site, I’d ban you and anyone else who would make my day any harder than it already is!!!
Orly, you were right…when you said that part of the problem in America today is the legal field…! It comes down to “ethics, principles,” and other character builders!
So let’s post…but don’t act like a smart-ass about it! God! That’s “rude” as hell…!
Davey Crockett…
January 13th, 2011 @ 8:45 am
Phil,
You must have a lot of free time to to post such lengthy nastiness. Orly can tell you herself that I have always been respectful of her.
Sometimes she posts my comments, and sometimes she does not. I do not have a problem with that.
January 13th, 2011 @ 10:58 am
What part of “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution” don’t our public officials understand?
That same Constitution says, those Judges are to serve during “good behavior” failure to honor their oath to support the Constitution is an open act of rebellion against the Constitution.
They should be removed from office and denied any retirement or health-care benefits of any kind,nature or description.
We the People need to demand our House of Representatives Impeach them for willful neglect of official duties, or replace them with representatives who will. Make them sign a binding contract with the voters to that effect.
January 13th, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
“In the 18th century, all wed(sic) had to do was: “lock and load!”” In Phil’s sad little world, this is true. Out here in the real world, we know that 18th century was a golden era of reason and debate that resulted in such achievements as the US Constitution.
And fyi, Phil, 18th century firearms did not “lock and load”, as they were single shot and had no magazines. The concept of “lock and load” involves locking a magazine of ammunition into a weapon and then loading the first round of that ammunition into the chamber of the weapon in preparation for imminent combat. You might know that if you had ever gotten around to serving your country.