Saturday, June 05, 2021

Constitution Radio: Kamala's Eligibility

Constitution Radio


Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM 


Saturdays, 1-3 pm Pacific

Podcast at

Call in Number: 951-922-3532



Anonymous said...

When the federal district court dismisses your case for lack of jurisdiction, it is going to cite the 9th Circuit's ruling in Orly Taitz's case.

Because your case is no different than hers.

Mark Zuckerberg said...

You morons are super pathetic. Trump is going to be reinstated in August, then you won't have to waste your time worrying about the woman who is a thousand times stronger than you.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

We are arguing the courts do have jurisdiction because the Constitution only gives authority to Congress over eligibility regarding its own members. The Tenth Amendment grants authority to the State Legislatures, or to the People. Therefore, we have standing, and the courts have jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

You can argue whatever you desire, even if it is a stupid argument (which yours is). But the district court won't agree, and it'll dismiss your case.

In a few years, the 9th Circuit will affirm the dismissal. After that,
the U.S. Supreme Court will deny cert.

And you will have learned nothing from your experience.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

So the liberal left response is, when unconstitutional and illegal action happens, say nothing, do nothing, put up with it because there is nothing you can do about it, anyway. Is that correct? Wow, and you were the jerks who called Trump a fascist?

Anonymous said...

No, that's not correct.

An action isn't illegal and unconstitutional merely because you believe it to be; this lawsuit is just an expression of impotent rage. And it is wasting limited judicial resources, a folly that denies others real justice.

The federal courts have made it clear that frivolous lawsuits such as this lack standing, so the court will dismiss this lawsuit soon enough.

No one is a fascist for noting these basic realities.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

No rage. I am all about constitutionality. Read the complaint, the evidence is there that she is not eligible for office. The waste of judicial resources is the fact that the courts are not following the constitution, and often even rule on cases that the federal courts have no authority regarding. You are right, they may very well dismiss the case on lack of standing, a stance that is also unconstitutional. We not only have standing, but based on the 10th Amendment it is clear the Congress has no authority over eligibility, the determination belongs to the State legislatures or to the people ... of which the latter we represent.

Anonymous said...

You aren't about the Constitution, just ineffectual attention seeking.

Your complaint is full of mistakes, and will soon be dismissed. It is nothing to brag about.

Your belief that the courts aren't following the U.S. Constitution is evidence only of your incorrect beliefs, and nothing else.

You may believe that you have standing, but the district court, the 9th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court will not be concerned about your beliefs.

You represent only yourself; you do not and cannot speak for "the people."