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

Can someone get in touch with this reporter from Wall Street Journal?

Posted on | October 30, 2009 | 4 Comments

Law Blog

WSJ on the cases, trends and personalities of interest to the business community.

  • October 30, 2009, 3:13 PM ET

On the ‘Birthers’ Lawsuits and Separation of Powers

By Ashby Jones

obamaWe’re not sure it’s exactly newsworthy anymore when a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s election on the grounds that he wasn’t born in the U.S. gets dismissed. (Though rest assured, we’ll be all over it if and when one gains significant traction.)

But an opinion issued on Thursday dismissing one of these suits (this one, like others, brought by our favorite Orange County lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz) caught our attention.

Here’s why: the court made some interesting observations on separation of powers. Many of the suits brought on these grounds have been dismissed for so-called standing problems. (Click here for a nice piece from last year from Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin on the issue of standing.) In Bravin’s words, “the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that courts . . . only should decide disputes where the plaintiff alleges “concrete” and “particularized” harm, rather than what Justice Antonin Scalia has called “purely psychological displeasure.” Citizens who have sued Obama have largely been found to have lacked standing.

The  opinion issued on Thursday, by Santa Ana, Calif., federal judge David O. Carter (a Clinton appointee), delved deeply into standing problems he felt many plaintiffs in the suit suffered.

But in the suit dismissed on Thursday, Carter ruled that a group of plaintiffs could have standing: namely Wiley S. Drake, Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Markham Robinson because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president or vice president in the 2008 election. Therefore, they may have been, theoretically speaking, harmed by an alleged fraud perpetrated by Obama in regard to his birthplace.

In regard to this group, Carter move on to another issue: separation of powers, finding that it is not within the constitutional power of the federal courts to “overthrow a sitting president.” Click here for an LA Times article on the suit.

Writes Carter:

In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court
intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down
the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.

. . .

Plaintiffs make it clear from their briefing that they believe that any order issued by a president who does not satisfy the natural-born citizen clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, in order to cure Plaintiffs’ perceived injury, the Court would need to wade deep into the waters of the President’s official duties–in fact, it would have to declare that the President could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave.

. . .

The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders

The analysis certainly seemed persuasive, but just as an added check, we called up Michael Small, a lawyer at Akin Gump in Los Angeles who last year taught a course at UCLA law on separation of powers.

Small explained that he “wasn’t surprised in the least” by the opinion. “Any judge would have ruled this way,” he said. “I could imagine a judge enjoining a specific ruling issued by a president viewed as illegitimate, but not one ousting the president.”

Category: Radio and Media Broadcasts

Comments

4 Responses to “Can someone get in touch with this reporter from Wall Street Journal?”

  1. jcalhoun
    October 30th, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

    why?

  2. Samantha Kearney
    October 30th, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

    My neighbor was a journalist at the WSJ prior to moving here to DC. She is joining us for dinner and trick-or treating with her kids tomorrow night – should I ask her?? Why – e.g. – what do we want to tell him?

  3. Judith Bailey
    October 30th, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

    Then you mean to tell me that Judge Carter does not care that he is elibible. We have had presidents ousted before and lived through it. It is going to be much harder to live through the kings reign than to elect another president. I think that if a judge is not going to uphold the law of the land and the constitution he should be impeached. I would think more kindly of him if he would just resign. I am very angry over this dismissal. We have a right to know the truth.

  4. TurnRight
    October 31st, 2009 @ 12:00 am

    Reading Carter’s words causes me to wonder what he was thinking… actually, what he wasn’t thinking. Insert Joe Biden into the mix and we get the Constitutional formula for smooth transition of a temporary nature. The VP simply takes over until the President can resume duty. If the prez can’t, then the VP is the one to hold office. What’s the problem?

    Of course, some are thinking from reading this: ‘Yes, but since Comandante Zero is illegitimate, then his VP is too. Fair enough. But then we can sort that out automatically through the Constitution… that is to say, Nanci Pelosi becomes the President. And looking at that event in a realistic way spells VICTORY in the Congress in 2010 for conservatives. She is SO polarizing as to render government a log jam. Under her presidency, people will be so pissed as to force a straightening out of this liberal mess we’ve allowed. She is SO effed-up that she would actually be good for the country in the long run.