Posted on 07/19/2010 5:31:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
"The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper." -- Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, US News & World Report, July 2, 2010
This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News, endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!
The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was usually bloody.
"Who will rid me of this meddling priest?" England's King Henry II was reputed to have said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was murdered on a cold December evening.
I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama. I would never suggest or condone the sword, but surely one would think we the People might have recourse to the courts or Congress.
The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous process involved and, of course, the outcome.
Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed, first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
The Constitution stipulates that "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."
The drawback of impeachment is the way it would inevitably cast Obama as the victim of predatory politicians. It is not a good choice.
Presumably, lying about one's eligibility to hold the office of President and spending huge sums to ensure that one's birth certificate and actual place of birth shall remain unknown would justify removal.
We all know by now that, constitutionally, only a "natural born" citizen may serve as President. His father was a British citizen and both parents must be American to qualify as natural born. We all know that considerable controversy exists as regards the birthplace and citizenship status of Obama. Was he a Kenyan? Was he an Indonesian citizen at one point?
The enduring question on the minds of many is why the court cases filed to get at the facts regarding his eligibility have encountered so much resistance? Surely this is a matter of major national concern. What nation would permit an imposter to serve in its highest office?
Alas, early cases were dismissed when those bringing them were deemed to have no "standing" before the court though one might think the lowliest citizen should have standing.
As wrenching as the process of removing Obama from office via the judicial process might be deemed, there is no legitimate reason not to proceed.
There appears to be no evidence his birth was registered with the American embassy or consulate in Kenya. I have seen a photo of a document said to be his Kenyan birth certificate. Having no way to authenticate it, I am reluctant to pass judgment.
The birth certificate from Hawaii, offered during the 2008 campaign, is said to be one issued upon request as opposed to the "long form" issued for those actually born there. There was some question raised at the time as to its authenticity with allegations that it was photoshopped. There is a question whether a long form certificate exists.
My personal view is that many in government fear the consequences of removing even an illegitimate President from office, given that it would require that all legislation signed into law and all executive orders issued by him would be rendered invalid. I suspect some fear that chaos more than waiting and hoping the electoral process will end his term in 2012.
My problem is that the nation must endure some 900 more days of the malevolence or sheer incompetence he will initiate; including a lame duck session of Congress following the midterm elections that would impose Cap-and-Trade, card check, and other legislative abominations.
A large majority of the electorate presently wants Obamacare repealed and will likely feel the same about the alleged financial "reforms."
There are constitutional scholars who know far more about such things than me, but I confess to remaining baffled by the failure to attend to the critical question regarding the right of Barack Hussein Obama to be the President of the United States.
For which part, the white half or the black half
Nah, thats not true. Plenty are ready to make the enemy die if necessary, none of us are going to die, the regime and its idiots are. There is a difference.
What whining there is in this article. A nation, despaired and dissappointed ? WRONG!
The nation is seething with anger.And its just simmering. Soon it will come to a rolling boil.
There won’t be a safe leftist in the whole country. Any leftist with an Obama bumper sticker better start tearing them off right now!
Well lets hope so. The point is in battle, you have to decide to put your life on the line. Yes, like Patton said, “You win by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” But you lose because you won’t do what it takes if necessary if you’re not willing to die for yours.
Is the date of birth real or did he craft that as well? If Caesar ObAmalek could choose a birthday, he'd want a real "good" one, a date in history that represents his vile character. He'd use a gentile calendar of course.
Sorry, but this is plainly false. Historical precdent from the SCOTUS itself makes it clear that Obama would be ineligible to hold office. Thank you Wong Kim Ark.
Sorry, but this is plainly false. Historical precdent from the SCOTUS itself makes it clear that Obama would be ineligible to hold office. Thank you Wong Kim Ark.
About ten different lower courts have ruled that once a presidential candidate’s name is on ballots and once that person receives Electoral College votes, wins a majority of the Electoral College votes, has those votes certified by the Vice President of the United States in his/her role as President of the Senate without any written objections from two members of Congress (one Representative and one Senator) and is sworn in on Inauguration Day, that person IS the President of the United States according to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. The ONLY ways to remove a sitting president from office are via impeachment and via trial plus conviction in the Senate or via resignation.
Here’s what a recent judge in an Obama eligibility lawsuit had to say:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009
Nowhere in the Constitution is the judiciary given the power to remove a sitting president from office. Only Congress can do that.
The judiciary can declare a candidate to be ineligible and can force that person’s name off ballots.
It is likely that a losing candidate in the general election WOULD be granted legal standing to sue an illegal candidate who won the popular vote. It is even possible that the losing Vice Presidential candidate and the losing political party’s national committee could be granted standing to sue on behalf of their injured candidates.
At the joint session of Congress to count and certify Electoral votes, members of the opposition party can challenge the certification of an ineligible president-elect’s Electoral College votes and force an immediate investigation. The opposition party could also seek a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the swearing in ceremony for an illegal president-elect.
Once a President-Elect assumes the office of President, a Grand Jury investigation gathering evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors has always been used in American history to lay the groundwork for impeachment or to force the resignation of a sitting president who is indicted. It was the original Arkansas Whitewater Grand Jury that eventually led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Fiske and then Judge Kenneth Starr which led to the Clinton impeachment.
It was the original Watergate Grand Jury investigation that led to the eventual naming of Richard Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator and forced Nixon’s resignation as President. Civil suits will not remove a president from office, criminal indictments certainly will.
Maybe the Gregorian equivalent of the Ninth of Av. Of course the day would depend on the year in question..
You go on and on about how these courts have ‘rejected’ the case, but the bottom line is that not ONE competent authority has ever declared Obama’s alleged COLB to be real nor has ANY competent authortiy ever declared Obama to be a natural born citizen. These rejections are based solely on standing and procedure, not merits of eligibility. Period.
You go on and on about how these courts have ‘rejected’ the case, but the bottom line is that not ONE competent authority has ever declared Obama’s alleged COLB to be real nor has ANY competent authortiy ever declared Obama to be a natural born citizen. These rejections are based solely on standing and procedure, not merits of eligibility. Period.
You are too stupid to realize that Obama doesn’t have to prove his eligibility, he’s been President of the United States for a year and a half now. Obama’s eligibility opponents have to prove his ineligibility which they have been unable to do in more than 70 attempts because their attorneys are too inept and incompetent to produce a single plaintiff who has standing to sue. That’s step one in any civil suit. Some of the conservative judges who have dismissed Obama eligibility lawsuits have even taken the trouble to lay out very spefically the requirements of standing. Its as if those judges are saying: “hint, hint...here’s who would have standing to sue...go find a plaintiff like this!” But no, the birther attorneys keep repeating the same legal mistakes over and over. Not one serious conservative/originalist constitutional attorney with a name reputation for winning cases before the Supreme Court has represented ANY Obama eligibility plaintiff.
He is milking the “Bushes Fault” excuse for every last drop he can get.
We are near 30% unemployed, real numbers.
The unemployed must be ready to shit can him and send him back to Kenya.
Funny thing is, he didn't blink .... like he knows Obama is not a US citizen. Like its a fact. He took no issue with it.
I too have spread the word. He was born a Kenyan and that's not ever going to change. A 100 years from now he will be known as the Islamo fraud who f@#ked Americans out of a trillion dollars and caused a depression.
I saw last night in the check out stand, a Globe magazine reporting the Gay Lover from Chicago that was killed. This guy is a major disaster.
Personal note: you might want to consider leaving the US if TSHTF. You don't sound like you're equipped to do much more than troll from your mother's basement.
Cheers!
Absolutely false. Obama is either eligibile or he isn't. Whether someone has so-called 'standing' to sue doesn't change this issue and it's completely banality to say otherwise.
You are too stupid to realize that Obama doesn’t have to prove his eligibility, he’s been President of the United States for a year and a half now.
This is wrong too. There are ballot laws that allow eligibility to be challenged. He can be forced to prove his qualifications. His ability to fool easily fooled people doesn't change this issue and it's complete simple-mindedness to suggest otherwise.
Here’s a “competent authority”, the Governor of Hawaii:
Sorry, but there's no evidence the Governor of Hawaii looked at Obama's birth records to know whether he's eligible or not. Further, she misstated what Obama's alleged COLB says and lied directly about it. Sorry, but she's no competent authority and it's complete buffoonery to think otherwise. My point stands: NO competent authority has ever authenticated Obama's alleged COLB nor has ANY competent authority ever found Obama to be a natural born citizen or constitutionally qualified for the position he occupies.
“Absolutely false. Obama is either eligibile or he isn’t. Whether someone has so-called ‘standing’ to sue doesn’t change this issue and it’s completely banality to say otherwise.”
Every state’s ballot law has a time-limit on filing a challenge to a person who was on the ballot. There is no state that allows ballot challenges a year and a half after an election.
The governor said that she sent her Director of Health to look at Obama’s birth certificate and report back. In more than 70 attempts, no judge or justice has challenged the state of Hawaii’s public statements concerning Obama’s birthplace. You can bet that those statements have been included in the defense briefs submitted to every court that has looked into the Obama eligibility issue.
The legal scorecard on Obama eligibility lawsuits is Obama: 70/Birthers: 0. At some point it might just occur to someone to try a different legal strategy such as a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power and the ability to call witnesses. There are no legal standing issues before a Grand Jury. And Grand Juries can investigate any issue that they choose to investigate.
The birthers have every right to continue to file lawsuits. I’m sure that the Harvard Law School graduate/former Attorney in Obama enjoys winning lawsuit after lawsuit and humiliating his most vehement political opposition. It’ll be something to share with his students when he returns to that Senior Lecturer position at the University of Chicago Law School some day.
As a conservative Republican Federal Judge in Georgia, appointed by George W,. Bush has said: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“
–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald,” September 16, 2009
So, if you enjoy being on the side of “spurrious claims” that “lack factual support” and are “frivolous,” be my guest.
Funny, the suits keep on getting dismissed for LACK OF STANDING: meaning the evidence isn’t even being considered.
Personal note: you might want to consider leaving the US if TSHTF. You don’t sound like you’re equipped to do much more than troll from your mother’s basement.
Cheers!
You are correct. Plaintiffs in Obama eligibility lawsuits have not been able to overcome the legal hurdle of standing and lawsuit after lawsuit (more than 50 of them) has been dimissed for lack of standing to sue. The one person in America with the best chance of being granted legal standing to sue is John Sidney McCain because he can show direct “injury-in-fact” from Obama’s election as the only other person to receive Electoral College votes. But Senator McCain has not filed suit. Even the Republican National Committee MIGHT have found a judge or a court that would grant the Republican Party standing to sue on behalf of the McCain-Palin campaign but that didn’t happen either.
That’s why I have favored a criminal justice approach to resolving the Obama eligibility issue. There are no issues of standing to get in the way of a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for forgery or election fraud and with a Grand Jury investigation (be it on the local level, the state level or the federal level) documents can be subpoenaed without Obama’s permission and witnesses can be compelled to testify under oath. But alas, no prosecuting attorney has had the guts to convene a Grand Jury investigation and “no guts, no glory.”
You have a wonderful day!
No constitutional authority has found him to be eligible. His apointment to the presidency is based on an unproven assumption. Period. Quit carry water for a fraud.
No constitutional authority has found him to be eligible. His apointment to the presidency is based on an unproven assumption. Period. Quit carry water for a fraud.
Quit being an unwitting dupe for a Democrat to use to make conservatives look really stupid and unnecessarily vindictive.
Obama is using the birther issue politically to appeal to Latino voters, a huge voting bloc who gave him 66% of their support in 2008 and who also have their citizenship constantly questioned.
Except for the part about being a natural born citizen.
Obama is using the birther issue politically to appeal to Latino voters, a huge voting bloc who gave him 66% of their support in 2008 and who also have their citizenship constantly questioned.
Are you sure you want to go down this road. Latino's actually show their papers and Obama hasn't. And unless you have evidence the eligibility issue is widely publicized in Spanish-language outlets, this is a bunch of nonsense anyway.
Except for the part about being a natural born citizen.
Are you sure you want to go down this road. Latino’s actually show their papers and Obama hasn’t. And unless you have evidence the eligibility issue is widely publicized in Spanish-language outlets, this is a bunch of nonsense anyway.
Obama wrote a number one bestseller about his father not being a US citizen in 1995. That was 12 years before he ran for president.
When he was running for president he posted his birth certificate on the internet for the entire planet to see.
That birth certificate has been authenticated by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, also by the Registrar of Records for the State of Hawaii, also by the Director of Communications for the state of Hawaii and also by by the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle who is a member of the opposition party to the president and who gave one of the nominating speeches for Governor Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Obama was vetted by primary opponents, and by the other political parties in the General Election, and by Congress in its role as challenger to his electoral college votes.
Allan Keyes, a challenger for the presidency from the American Independent Party went to court to have Obama’s candidacy and election invalidated. His lawsuit was thrown out and was rejected again on appeal.
As the 12th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states:
“The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President,”
In 2009 that person was Barack Hussein Obama Junior and that’s why he was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts and no subsequent challenge to his eligibility has been upheld including 8 appeals attempted at the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.