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

Political Question Doctrine

Posted on | May 16, 2009 | 3 Comments

 Small correction. One of the 4 questions I posed for Justice is Souter is indeed the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, however I asked him not what is the meaning, as it is perceived today, but rather what was the meaning at the time it was included in the Constitution, I asked SCOTUS to trace the meaning, as they did it in now famous Heller case, dealing with the right to bear arms
Orly 
PS Mr. Daneman thank you for the art work. It is truly beautiful.

RE: Political Questions Doctrine, WND article

Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:32 AM
From:
To:
“Daniel Tokaji” <tokaji.1@osu.edu>, “Dr. Orly Taitz” <dr_taitz@yahoo.com>
Dear Professor Tokaji,
 
I’m glad Bob Unruh took my advice and contacted you. I was stopped from going to law school and am merely a paralegal, so I insisted he consult you.
 
I have relied on your articles, but my problem was stopping Barack Obama‘s alleged invalid presidency now. Relying on the Metabolitepatent case, I convinced Dr. Orly Taitz to include in her SCOTUS petition a direct question on the Definition of the Term of Art Natural Born Citizen.
 
According to the Metabolite case, the court can divert its attention from the political/legal merits question and concentrate on the meaning of the law; specifically current confusion and misapplication of ‘natural born citizen’ as it appears solely in U.S. law in Article II of the constitution. See the analysis section of the Cornell University brief at https://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-607
 
SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, and its authoritative opinion can be backed up by numerous amicus briefs. This will give Congress accurate information on which to pursue Bill Posey’s (FLA) H.R. 1503.
 
Again, it was good Mr. Unruh took my advice considering your expertise and the ethical considerations of quoting me as an expert.
 
Highest Regards,
 
Leonard A. Daneman
Independent Paralegal
Fine Art Photographer
Category: Uncategorized

Comments

3 Responses to “Political Question Doctrine”

  1. Jack Ryan
    May 16th, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

    “Relying on the Metabolitepatent case, I convinced Dr. Orly Taitz to include in her SCOTUS petition a direct question on the Definition of the Term of Art Natural Born Citizen.”

    You link to a case summary based on the briefs filed in a case that was dismissed. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories where the writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted. https://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-607.pdf

    That’s important and helpful why?

  2. Leonard Daneman
    May 16th, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

    It’s not the outcome of the case, but the jurisprudence that has value.

    The Political Questions Doctrine hinders your case, except for the question of the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ which is unique in U.S. law, as it appears only once . . . and that is in U.S. Const. Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.

    The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on that question, and it does not interfere in the political process or violate the separation of powers.

  3. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    May 16th, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

    Yes Mr. Daneman, I’ve written it . Let’s hope we are not talking to the wall