Skip to comments.OBAMA IS LEGAL
Posted on 03/04/2013 5:24:01 AM PST by knarf
While researching another matter, I came across this startling bit of legality ...
De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.
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 persons appointment or election to office is deficient.
The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:
First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;
Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such. [Jersey City v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]
Are you effing kidding me?
Really hate the American legal system sometimes....
and a 3 dollar bill is valid if people don’t question it long enough
Yep. Didn’t you know that?
Throw him out!!!
The De Facto President?
Sounds like a good book title.
knarf, is this federal. state, or municipal law?
I've read so much here about his (il)legitimacy, and I can't remember much being cited FOR his legality.
No surprise here. I was posting basically the same concept right after the 2008 election. At that point, questions about his eligibility became moot. With his reelection, the eligibility issue became a non-issue.
I'll look later (or someone may want the ministry themselves ... )
'Cause like I said, I was researchin' something else ... that I still need to research.
Article 2, Section 4 states:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
and last i checked, forgery, fraud, and identity theft were crimes in the United States all punishable by prison terms of multiple years
if he’s so ‘legal’ ... then he’d have no problem OFFICIALLY SUBMITTING his birth certificate and selective service as official documents of eligibility / qualifying papers
It can still be used to ruin his legacy. I'd certainly get a lot of satisfaction if it could be proven to the country and the world that he's a fraud and a liar. Even if he couldn't be removed.
The only way that Obozo is a “natural born” citizen as required under the Constitution is if his father is other than BHO, Sr. That is probably the case and he “may” be a “natural born” citizen. He has never submitted evidence that he is.
This is a stupid dispute. This has gone on so long that it is obvious that “high treason” is taking place all over Washington, DC at the highest levels of government. All 3 branches of government know he is a Fraud, impostor and illegally in this office. The quest is “WHY”? And it is unanswered.
It is certain from his actions that he is a “natural born” Commie B_tard.
Totalitarianism in all it's forms is evil. Dictator, Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism and all forms.
I doubt Obozo was born in Kenya. That was only something that he claimed because he at the time benefited from saying it.
I doubt that BHO, Sr. was in fact his biological father. In my opinion, it is most likely that FMD is his biological father.
There is NO evidence of his birth in HI. None.
His entire “history” is conjured.
But it is certain that he like his minions serve the “father-of-lies”.
He may fool or blackmail men, but God is not deceived.
Any other documents used to define any portion or duty of that office is no better than toilet paper.
But apparently these days so is our Constitution. But that's a discussion for another thread.
The only chance we had to remove him was through the ballotbox.
a.k.a. “Possession is 9/10ths of the law”
If his father is Obama Sr., we get him for espionage, on what he has done (with the willing idiots in DC) them we get for treason
If his father is an American, then we get him for treason, and we still get the idiots in DC on the same charge....
With a special trial because she is so special, sister Nancy not only gets a special "we will let you know what the punishment is after your found guilty" of fraud, treason, insider trading, malfeasance and felony stupidity.
Dick Chaney as well for failing to do his job in certifying the election.
Just a thought.
It’s considerably worse for the office of the POTUS, as congress and the courts have essentially agreed that the POTUS is above the law.
The idea evolved over the years, with highlights such as the Marbury v. Madison (1810) decision, which among other things established that the president cannot be compelled to act through a writ of mandamus.
This meant that from that point presidential power was increased when the president could thwart efforts to *prevent* him from acting.
Then the presidents learned they could turn benign and ceremonial acts in presidential powers, a good example being when Teddy Roosevelt turned the “presidential proclamation” into a means for the federal government to seize vast amounts of state lands by decree, with the agreement of congress. Most of the presidents since then have done so.
Later massive power grabs, including one relevant to Obama, is that congress and the courts regard the presidential pardon as sacrosanct. But more so, that because a president *could* have given a pardon to his cabinet, his VP, or even *himself*, that they must assume he did give them pardons.
Thus his entire cabinet is in effect immune from prosecution, even after he leaves office, unless he renounces their immunity or they commit offenses while remaining in non-protected government office after he leaves, but only for offenses committed there.
And, as we’ve all seen, while a hostile House of Representatives is willing to impeach, the senate is perpetually unwilling.
Now of course they have purchased 2700 armored vehicles and 1.8 billion rounds with 30,000 UAV's, but we still outnumber them.
I actually see this as good news. Given that the “Constitutional crisis” that would ensue were Obama to be found ineligible and removed from office involves the question of validity of all of the law that has been created under his bogus administration, this idea eliminates an important perceived impediment to his removal.
Following that, the laws themselves would be vastly discredited, even if they remain in effect, and the potential for repeal greatly enhanced, even if they were merely to be put to a vote again to put a stamp of legitimacy on them.
Those voting for these things on a “second chance” vote would have to support them on their merits, and at risk of their own reputations, instead of hiding behind the fig leaf of “supporting the President”.