OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

from NWS -National writers syndicate

Posted on | October 11, 2009 | 2 Comments

 Flag this message

Orly I just published this —– BREAKING: Oh Yeah! – Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. – Standing v Obama + Felonies

Sunday, October 11, 2009 8:04 PM From:

BREAKING: Oh Yeah! – Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. – Standing v Obama + Felonies

by Barry Weinstein

… Obama’s [FALSE]  identity, employment, and residence information. The use of a multitude of social security numbers alone is indicative that Mr. Obama appears to have committed a substantial number of felony violations, …

Read more…

Category: HOT ITEMS!, Radio and Media Broadcasts

Comments

2 Responses to “from NWS -National writers syndicate”

  1. WATCHER
    October 11th, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

    amen to that

  2. MarkR
    October 15th, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

    Hi Orly

    Did you see this case about Standing?

    Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:

    “Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell’s conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag27_user.html

    Powell v. McCormack

    4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.

    (a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.

    (b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.

    5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.

    (a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.

    (b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.

    6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.

    (a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.

    (b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.

    7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.

    https://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.html

    Best Wishes
    Mark