Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
A lot of the tea party people have been good because they are going there and going on their convictions.
You want to remove the old guard. They are history and we need a new guard of passionate conservative types.
Surely you meant “provenance”.
Kind of a difficult argument to press forward based on the fact that the only way to remove a sitting President is through impeachment.
He candidacy was approved by 50 secretaries of state, he won the electoral, Congress certified the election, and the Supreme Court Justice of the United States swore him in.
He is addressed as Mr. Present, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, He signs bills that have become law, and he’s vetoed bills, and all this with with nary a word from Congress on his “Presidential Stature”.
Go ahead, take your case to court and prove he is not President. I’ll wait until you prove me wrong.
Yea, no wonder why the word didn’t seem to fit. Thanks.
The states supposedly require their candidates to be eligible. What the courts have ruled is that the people can’t stop state SOS’s from putting on the ballot even people who are KNOWN to be ineligible, like Roger Calero, whose placement on the ballot was challenged by Leo Donofrio. In Nebraska, the attorney for SOS John Gale said they HAVE to put a name on the ballot even if they KNOW that the OCON submitted is fraudulent and the person is ineligible, because the law doesn’t say that it has to be a LAWFUL (non-fraudulent, non-perjurious) OCON...
What all of this is saying is, “The government is a criminal enterprise and it is nobody’s business if it’s a huge scam, blinking the taxpayers of every red cent they’ve got while NOT providing the services they were hired to do and instead OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
I will never buy that. I will never buy that it is none of my business if my government takes my tax dollars and uses it to rape the whole stinking country.
Is that what the state courts are saying? Have I understood them correctly? They’re saying THE GOVERNMENT AS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE IS NONE OF MY STINKING BUSINESS. Right?
Whatever you say, “Judge” Carroll.
No, that statue doesn’t say they clearly don’t. That statue say’s certify, and certify includes eligibility.
Go back to the hypothetical. If you’re earnest (which you’ve proven you’re not), you’ll understand why you are completely wrong and your method cannot be.
I have a 2-3 year history of being an opponent of Obama’s policies. So, whenever I’m called a shill by somebody that blindly disagrees with common sense, I declare ....
I win.
Thank you Judge Ed Wood.
And I go by Judge Elwood.
If you’re not just feigning ignorance look it up.
You left out two steps. A federal judge would have to issue an arrest warrant before the Marshals Service could enforce it. And a U.S. Attorney or the Justice Department would have to file a criminal complaint before a judge would issue an arrest warrant.
Obama would claim his right to the office under the Supreme Court’s “de facto officer doctrine:” The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.”
In non-legalize, because the Congress (certifying his electoral votes, sending him bills to sign, confirming his nominees) and the Supreme Court (ruling on the constitutionality of his policies) have interacted with Obama as if he were the legitimate President, they have forfeited the legal right to challenge his legitimacy.
“and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. “
Exactly where in there does it say that if there are electoral votes for somebody that Congress doesn’t think is eligible they can just reject those votes?
What part of “No electoral vote...shall be rejected” don’t you understand?
“Is that what the state courts are saying?”
No, they are saying that existing laws do not require the SoS to act. Change the law.
If you want SOS John Gale to be required to investigate Presidential candidates change the law to require it.
BTW, there have been examples where SoS have removed people from the ballot because information in their filings showed them to be ineligible for the Presidency.
If I recall correctly a lot of the New Deal stuff FDR treated as law and in his province of authority was declared unconstitutional by SCUSA and the laws and acts were vacated. Also, it is my understanding that the Framers intended such balancing actions of powers by the three branches. With that understanding I believe the Congress has a primary obligation to remedy acts that are beyond doubt outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
The rulings are that the SOS CANNOT require documentation if the law doesn’t specifically say he/she has to. And he/she can’t refuse to allow known election fraud because the law doesn’t say that election fraud is illegal (or whatever). I mean they say that election fraud is illegal but they don’t say that the SOS has to keep it from happening if he/she knows it is happening. God knows it isn’t, like, being an accomplice to a crime if you know it is happening and you participate in it willingly... I imagine there are laws that say that participating in a known crime is itself a crime, but maybe they don’t exactly say, “When BOB BAUER presents a fraudulent OCON and you know it’s fraud and perjury but go right along with it you’re an accomplice to BOB BAUER’s crime, John Gale”.... so the law obviously doesn’t apply to that situation.
And unless the law says, “Nellie R, if you go 10 miles over the speed limit on 13th Street in Crete, you are speeding and may lawfully be pulled over and arrested”, well, then, how can the cops say they are authorized to pull me over?
We could do this game ad nauseum. But we won’t. Not with the little people. Only with the dark overlords will we act as if we can’t even wipe our bottoms unless the laws specifically tell us to, when, where, and for how long.
Stinks to high heaven. It’s LAWLESSNESS. One set of rules for me, another for thee. Obama would have been arrested the night of his nomination acceptance speech if Obama was treated just like every other little person in this country.
Justice will come. It’s just delayed for a while. God knows the truth, and He will not be mocked. I fear there’s going to be Hell on earth before we reach justice though. If people are gnashing their teeth at Obamacare so far, they’ve got a very, very rude awakening at what is going to come. Obama is a foreign enemy combatant who has aligned himself with terrorist Islamists at every opportunity and done everything in his power to hurt this country and its people. When the fangs come all the way out there will be a lot of people who will be wishing they had listened while they still had time.
John Gale, I’m talking to YOU.
Random items --
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor
Instantiates Congress power to disqualify.
AMENDMENT XXVII Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
Not only did the President not have the power to change Congresses compensation (I.E like Obamacare waiver) it's also verifiably unconstitutional. So, birthers, drop the case that will *never* *ever* go anywhere other than the national enquirer and work on something that is plain as day.
The Iraqi forces are routing the invaders at Baghdad International Airport. They are killing their bodies and eating their flesh...
Keep talking Baghdad Bob. lol.
Congress can declare a President disqualified to hold any office of honor after they have convicted him in impeachment. That’s a power specifically given to them.
It has nothing to do with somebody failing to qualify for the Presidency in the first place, though, and just shows the difference between what Congress IS specifically allowed to do, versus what is never specifically assigned to them to do.
Again, for about the 20th time, show me where the Constitution gives similar specific authority for Congress to declare a President elect ineligible to be POTUS.
I’ve already shown you the statute that shows Congress does NOT have the authority to reject electoral votes simply because they think the person being voted for is ineligible. So the counting of the electoral votes, which is assigned to Congress in the Constitution, has NOTHING to do with them determining eligibility or giving any kind of approval for the President elect but only Congress acknowledging that the electoral votes were certified by the States.
Impeachment does not remove. Conviction removes.
The House impeaches, the Senate convicts.
Impeachment is akin to indictment.
Senate convicts is actually more akin to Senate removes by presenting facts for a vote in which Senators act as judge, jury and executioner; executioner in the sense of removing from office but not for imprisonment.
Once removed by the Senate, the judicial branch may try to convict in a court and this can result in imprisonment.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/instantiation
Then read:
Reasoning with Law -- By Andrew Halpin
Congress can declare a President disqualified to hold any office of honor after they have convicted him in impeachment. That’s a power specifically given to them.
Not enumerated. Instantiated. Sometimes an enumeration (actually quite often) also instantiates.
By enumerating Congresses duties, The U.S Constitution has instantiated certain other duties that result as a direct consequence.
So every time you thought you posted your proof and my refutation, you provided an example of an instantiated power that for political reasons, you cannot recognize.
Every time you feel like arguing this, please go back and re-read everything I've said because I have nothing else to add except:
You forfeited the argument for calling me a Liberal shill. You've proven that your argument is driven by political belief rather than simple reading comprehension and logic 101.
Oh, and remember that Judicial Review outcome of Marbury vs. Madison where the SCOTUS assumed the power of judicial review -- did so on the basis of instantiation. Are you advocating that SCOTUS instantiated another duty as a direct result of a previous instantiation? While not an unreasonable stance, in this particular case, it would impede State and Congressional enumerations.
However, instantiated powers [as opposed to enumerated] are expected to be impeded because they are often born of political consequence. Which is the case of the Birther movement.
I understand what you are saying and it is correct. I just thought it didn’t need to be pointed out that Conviction is necessary.
As for the rest ... The house Impeaches, the trial is held in the Senate and the SCJOTUS presides over the trial.
Before you accuse take a look at yourself. We could easily say, “You forfeited the argument by calling us birthers. You’ve proven that your argument is driven by political belief rather than simple reading comprehension and logic 101.”
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.