The First Amendment and the Citizens Grand Juries

Here are a couple of posts from my message board that may interest some of you.

Billy2

I saw enough of it... about three minutes.

The Clintons and the RNC couldn't dig enough dirt on the birth certificate....So all of you that insist on the issue have you ever pondered the thought that someone is making lots of money through donations on the subject and have much interest in keeping it going? Ho0w many times does the subject have to be thrown out before you ponder the idea that there is no merit to it?

TRUEGRIT

Billy...even you cannot believe that every case that a court found was without merit, or standing, was in fact without merit or standing. These cases have never been heard so they have not been found without merit but without standing. There is no such thing as a perfect system and without doubt, perfectly legitimate cases have been found, 'without merit' or 'without standing' by judges who allowed their personal agenda to interfere with their job.

The first amendment gives all of these cases merit, and standing Billy, this is what it says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.

The last two are particularly relevant...the right to peaceably assemble....think 'Citizens Grand Jury'....and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances....think 'indictment'.

So the people have peaceably assembled and found that there is enough evidence to indict Obama, according to the first amendment they have a right to redress by the government, but the courts are denying that redress by not even hearing a case. Tell me how is that justice, how is that even constitutional? The people have at the very least the right to a trial to see if their indictment will hold up. These indictments, like all indictments, are not findings of guilt, they are findings that there is enough evidence to go to trial.

You cannot point to a single case that has actually gone to trial and that is because if one ever does go to trial, all of Obama's records will have to be made available and we know that he does not want that to happen and is paying several law firms big bucks to keep it that way when this could be all over for less than $25 by releasing his records. No reasonable person can look at this situation and on face value see that Obama is hiding something.

A while back several active duty soldiers accused Obama of being a usurper and did so knowing they could be court marshaled. Did you or anyone ever hear that they were actually court marshaled? No? That is because if they had been court marshaled, Obama's records would have had to be made available and everyone knows he does not want that to happen.