Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to, but it would have helped everybody including the CCP if they had issued a correction as soon as they found out the mistake and explained how it happened. Mistakes happen, and when they do the best policy is to acknowledge them, apologize, and correct the record so the truth is known.
“I understand your argument, my opinion is that SCOTUS would reject your argument”.
And rightly so seeings how there is only 1 way to remove a President. Read the Constitution. He could murder somebody on the whitehouse lawn and the judicial system won’t do jack about it because he has to be impeached first before prosecuted — not that in that event anybody would follow his orders anyhow, perhaps just his Koolaid Kadre.
An ineligible POTUS is never supposed to be allowed to “ACT AS PRESIDENT”, according to the 20th Amendment. It can be debated whether he/she actually can BE president, given that the Constitution says that nobody shall be eligible to the Presidency unless the right age, the right residency, and the right citizenship status. But whether or not he/she IS the President, that person if ineligible is not to be allowed to act as President. Congress was supposed to come up with a line of succession for who should act as President if neither the President-elect nor VP-elect were eligible to do so as of January 20th.
IOW, whether Obama WAS President as of Jan 20, 2009 was irrelevant. The 20th Amendment forbids him from being able to ACT as President unless and until he meets the Constitutional qualifications (age, residency, and citizenship). And he has NEVER met those requirements.
>> He could murder somebody on the whitehouse lawn and the judicial system won’t do jack about it because he has to be impeached first before prosecuted
Who a ridiculous assertion.
thanks!
But true nevertheless.
No it’s not. If charged with murder courts will hear it.
It’s also irrelevant.
Art II does not delegate to Congress determinations of eligibility. Questions regarding constitutional provisions are decided by the Supreme Court, not Congress.
According to crazy OBots, they unequivocally say that "In 1961 "9" meant "other non-white" like it says in the coding instruction manual, but obviously, "other non-white" doesn't make any sense for box 12h “Kind of Business or Industry". Whaaaaa?
Like Zullo said, "9" means 'not-stated' where the birf certificate boxes should have been left blank.
This is the usual case of OBot CONflation. They are trying to say these internal pencil mark codes are the same as stated in classifications shown in this government publication. See the highlighted paragraph under 'Race and color' for 1961 vital statistic classifications.
And the CDC in Atlanta follow up confirmed this.
What likely happen is that the forger got hold of an image of a Hawaiian birf certificate, a template, that gave him empty boxes to fill in with the desired text.
The House and Senate will hear it.
The subject came up in 1998 and before that in 1973, as well as during/after the Civil War. The President might be subject to court proceedings, and 8theoretically* could be indicted (there’s no precedent for indictment), but the practicality is impeachment and removal, and for good reason.
I suppose a case could be made that a President could be tried in a state court, although the Civil War probably answered that question.
“Engine, engine number nine
comin’ down the railroad line.. “
I've come to a realization. The constitution is not the supreme law. That would be "natural law"; The philosophy underpinning our original founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
Our founders did not appeal to the 1787 US Constitution as the authority for what they did, they appealed to the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God.
The Document that CREATED US citizenship, (The Declaration of Independence) was an absolute rejection of British Law, because there was no provision under British law to allow for what they did.
The Declaration of Independence created an independent government, and it was our governing document till the 1781 articles of confederation became the new governing document.
The point is, All authority for all these documents comes from the inherent rights of man as espoused by the philosophy of natural law.
This fantasy you cling to is noteworthy — it goes to show just how little, (pause) people understand how our Federal Triumvirate works (Bicameral legislation) + (Quasi-Oligarchical Judicial system) + (non-successionary Monarch) is supposed to work.
When Obama was sworn in, he left the realm of common and statue law and into the realm of conditional immunity with impeachment oversight. The judiciary has no role other than the CJSCOTUS presiding over impeachment hearings.
If it were otherwise, every President from here on out will be mired in judicial proceedings, like if it was a conservative every Liberal coast to coast will be trying to ‘Tom Delay’ him out of office.
Maybe the 9 should replace the 7?
non sequitor.
Congress certifies the election — presupposing eligibility from elsewhere. “If they are here before me, then they are elible.”
The topic is narrow. Is or is not Obama the President of the U.S and who and how can he be discharged from that office.
Answer 1. Yes
Answer 2. Congress through impeachment.
and -10 pts for those that think the Judiciary has any say in the matter.
Oh, you must mean .... “What a ridiculous Constitution”.
That has been adequately demonstrated up to this point. The only way to FORCE them to take notice of this is if someone can find irrefutable proof that Obama was not born inside this country, and therefore does not even possess statutory citizenship. (He most definitely DOES NOT possess NATURAL citizenship.)
If it can be demonstrated that Obama has no legal claim to US Citizenship, then it would be such a serious breach of Article II that the court would have no choice but to take notice of it.
I'm thinking this "9" issue has to do with birth outside of the state of Hawaii, rather than race, because I vaguely remember that was the contention some years ago when these penciled in numbers on the "birth certificate" were first noticed.
If it does indeed have to do with race, then it is far less useful than if it has to do with place of birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.