Jun 14, 2012 -- 12:14AM, teilhard wrote:

Indeed, it was the Case that Alan Keyes "lacked Standing" ...

Jun 14, 2012 -- 12:13AM, Hatman wrote:

i seriously doubt that Keye's case was "thrown out." Based on prior observation, it was more likely denied any due process, for such specious reasons as "failure to state a case upon which relief may be granted" or "appellant lacks standing." No, i suspect that the ONLY way any federal court will be FORCED to hear the truth is for any State's representatives to bring suit on behalf of the State in question, as ONLY States are parties to the Constitution, therefore ONLY States can make Constitutional challenges. With goodwill to all the People- Hatman

Thanks for admitting that the court in Keye's case refused to even hear, much less adjudicate, any proofs he may have brought to the table.

"How conveeeeeenient!", says the Church Lady.

With goodwill to all the People(save oathbreaking scum)-

Hatman

Jun 15, 2012 -- 2:54PM, Druac wrote:

Jun 14, 2012 -- 12:13AM, Hatman wrote:

i seriously doubt that Keye's case was "thrown out." Based on prior observation, it was more likely denied any due process, for such specious reasons as "failure to state a case upon which relief may be granted" or "appellant lacks standing." No, i suspect that the ONLY way any federal court will be FORCED to hear the truth is for any State's representatives to bring suit on behalf of the State in question, as ONLY States are parties to the Constitution, therefore ONLY States can make Constitutional challenges. With goodwill to all the People- Hatman

Arizona started that process and received adequate proof...thus dropping the case for fear of looking like total dip-sh*ts.

Too late.