Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary Clinton is Legally Ineligible To Be President
15 October 2016 | Windy

Posted on 10/15/2016 1:53:04 PM PDT by Windflier

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Windflier

Bookmark for posterity.


41 posted on 10/15/2016 2:30:00 PM PDT by Chgogal (A woman who votes for Hillary is voting with her vagina and not her brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
Has she been indicted, tried, and found guilty?

Yes, she has - in the only court that really matters - the court of public opinion.

42 posted on 10/15/2016 2:30:20 PM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Absolutely agree and if we had an honest _resident and administration that didn’t thumb their noses at real Americans Mrs. Bill Clinton would be in prison or at least tied up in legal proceedings instead of running for the WH.


43 posted on 10/15/2016 2:31:48 PM PDT by jazusamo (Have YOU Donated to Free Republic? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
Yeah, well BHO isn’t a natural born citizen and he has been usurping the office for almost eight years.

True, but this isn't about constitutional eligibility.

44 posted on 10/15/2016 2:31:52 PM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose
The trick is to find someone in the current administration willing to actually enforce the law.

No one in the current administration is going to enforce the law in this case. It's up to the American people, which is who I posted this information for.

45 posted on 10/15/2016 2:35:31 PM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

So, if elected, that will possibly be two illegal Presidents in a row.

What a country!


46 posted on 10/15/2016 2:38:02 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Ride To The Sound Of The Guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The only way the statute would be applicable to her (or anyone else) is if they were charged and found guilty by a court of being in violation of the statute. Hillary still enjoys the legal presumption of innocence under the law, as should every American.


47 posted on 10/15/2016 2:40:50 PM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

That’s nice.

Meaningless, though.

Until she is convicted of a disqualifying statute, she didn’t do nuffin.


48 posted on 10/15/2016 2:41:16 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Ride To The Sound Of The Guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

She has not been adjudicated guilty so save your nreath

This is even more of a non starter than all the obozo stufg


49 posted on 10/15/2016 2:43:30 PM PDT by Nifster (Ignore all polls. Get Out The Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

You are correct.


50 posted on 10/15/2016 2:47:53 PM PDT by Delta 21 (Patiently waiting for the jack booted kick at my door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

You’re absolutely right. Courts though have been demurring, or being derelict in their duty, in leaving these things up to a not entirely educated electorate. Witness allowing Ted Cruz’s run, not even mentioning Obama’s.


51 posted on 10/15/2016 2:52:14 PM PDT by OldNewYork (Operation Wetback II, now with computers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

I’m puttin u in charge of re-opening that dept.


52 posted on 10/15/2016 2:54:38 PM PDT by Wneighbor (Deplorable, livin in a swamp of crazy and lovin it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
This isn't about the basic constitutional requirements for eligibility. Don't confuse that with the issue at hand. She's guilty of having violated the above statute while she was an officer of the government, so is therefore LEGALLY ineligible to hold federal office again - per the statute.

At present, the question isn't IF she is eligible under the statute, but WHO will enforce that statute?

This seems akin to Zero's birth issue. There is no one who will take the authority to enforce. Congress won't do it, comey won't do it. It's up to the electorate.

I am entirely open to suggestion here.

53 posted on 10/15/2016 3:01:51 PM PDT by Wneighbor (Deplorable, livin in a swamp of crazy and lovin it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
She could set a trend for Fashion Week.

I've heard "orange is the new black."

54 posted on 10/15/2016 3:11:28 PM PDT by Wneighbor (Deplorable, livin in a swamp of crazy and lovin it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I don’t know about Clinton, but bathroom Barry certainly wasn’t eligible, and that made no difference whatsoever.


55 posted on 10/15/2016 3:12:36 PM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Windflier said: "True, but this isn't about constitutional eligibility. "

I think it is.

The Constitution explicitly states the requirements to be elected President. One may not add, remove, or modify any of that without a Constitutional amendment.

Do you think a statute could require that a person be 40 years of age or only 30 in order to be President? Of course not. The enumeration of requirements to be President takes the issue out of the hands of Congress.

56 posted on 10/15/2016 3:15:41 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
So, if elected, that will possibly be two illegal Presidents in a row. What a country!

Like it or not, this places us with many 3rd world countries. We comment about Hitlery or Bernie taking us there, meaning socioeconomically, but with folks in office illegally, we're there.

57 posted on 10/15/2016 3:19:47 PM PDT by Wneighbor (Deplorable, livin in a swamp of crazy and lovin it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
So, if elected, that will possibly be two illegal Presidents in a row. What a country!

Like it or not, this places us with many 3rd world countries. We comment about Hitlery or Bernie taking us there, meaning socioeconomically, but with folks in office illegally, we're there.

58 posted on 10/15/2016 3:19:53 PM PDT by Wneighbor (Deplorable, livin in a swamp of crazy and lovin it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“The Constitution explicitly states the requirements to be elected President. One may not add, remove, or modify any of that without a Constitutional amendment.”

I think constitutional eligibility is a completely separate matter from the issue we’re discussing.

Naturally, I can’t disagree with the essence of your statement, but bear in mind that the Framers didn’t craft the sort of airtight document that lawmakers of today would. They granted only enough power to the federal government, for it to perform its prescribed duties, and (per the 10th Amendment) left the rest to the states and to The People.

We must assume that, in matters such as the one before us now, it’s the people who must decide on Mrs Clinton’s eligibility, in light of the referenced statute.

That statute is a common sense rule for those entrusted with our nation’s most sensitive information. Any government employee who violates the provisions of part (a) should be subject to the penalties and restrictions in part (b).


59 posted on 10/15/2016 3:32:10 PM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The difference between obama and hitlery is we didn’t know obama was so corrupt when he ran for POTUS. With hitlery we know it as fact.

It’s unthinkable she is even on the ticket.


60 posted on 10/15/2016 3:32:52 PM PDT by Boomer (Is it time for a new "Freedom Party" to emerge to replace the GOPe and the radical dems?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson