Replies

“To date, not a single court has moved to take this issue up. And, in every understanding of existing US statutory and constitutional law, the ONLY way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.”

Having dealt with you once before on this topic, I am not going to get into an extended debate.

But, impeachment is not the issue here. When you have an office holder who is not eligible to hold the office, he isn't the office holder. His purported acts are void. There is Supreme Court authority which you posted directly on point. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, he isn't the President either.

So in a sense, impeachment and the 25th Amendment are the only methods for removing a sitting President; and impeachment appears to be within the sole purview of the Senate. Assuming Obama is not Natural Born, impeachment is not the remedy because not being President, he cannot be the target of an impeachment.

The release this morning of the claim letter from the Osama Bin Laden heirs may well operate to bring the issue back to the table.

International Law requires that to avoid prosecution and Criminal Liability, the Seals who carried out the mission were required to have been acting on lawful orders and were further obligated, as were their superior officers, to challenge orders which were not lawful.

Lawful orders among other things require issue by the Commander in Chief.

So if these guys were relying on orders from Obama and he is not a NBC, the orders were not lawful and they have a criminal murder problem (maybe).

There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.

“Assuming Obama is not Natural Born, impeachment is not the remedy because not being President, he cannot be the target of an impeachment.”

This was the key point in dispute at the May 2 Drake hearing, IMO.

Judge Berzon agrees with you, as I suspect does most of the federal bench, but DeJute, on orders from Obama and Holder, disagrees with you and, as teased out by Judge Fisher in the final minutes, argues that elligibility of a president-elect cannot be determined by the courts, but goes to the electors and congress and as soon as POTUS is inaugurated, both eligibility and the very constitutional definition of NBC language in A2 is the sole responsibility of the Senate, and not the federal courts including SCOTUS!

This cringing by the federal bench over the DOJ stripping them of ability to rule on the meaning of constitutional language is why the 9th agreed to hear this case.

Hmmm...I might have to post a vanity on this...:

DeJute even

DEJUTE: It’s a distinction worth noting because the commitment to the House is that that body has the sole authority under the Constitution…

BERZON: …to impeach.

DEJUTE: To impeach. And the Senate has the sole authority…

37:00 BERZON: But this wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment, would it?

DEJUTE: Wouldn’t it be a high crime and misdemeanor? I don’t know…we’re in the area of there has clearly been no case law. But I do know that if the Constitution says that the only body that can remove a sitting president is the Congress in both houses, then the…

37:22 BERZON: Where does it say that?

The release this morning of the claim letter from the 0sama Bin Laden heirs may well operate to bring the issue back to the table.

International Law requires that to avoid prosecution and Criminal Liability, the Seals who carried out the mission were required to have been acting on lawful orders and were further obligated, as were their superior officers, to challenge orders which were not lawful.

Lawful orders among other things require issue by the Commander in Chief.

So if these guys were relying on orders from 0bama and he is not a NBC, the orders were not lawful and they have a criminal murder problem (maybe).

There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.

. . . . Excerpted. - Read more at # 449.

Thanks, David.

There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.

Is this right? "The Constitution already says that in the event of the incapacity, death, resignation or removal from office of a President, it is the Vice-President who fills the role of President."

Assuming Obama is not Natural Born, impeachment is not the remedy because not being President, he cannot be the target of an impeachment.

Agreed.

The release this morning of the claim letter from the Osama Bin Laden heirs may well operate to bring the issue back to the table.... So if these guys were relying on orders from Obama and he is not a NBC, the orders were not lawful and they have a criminal murder problem (maybe). There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.

Wouldn't that be something if it was OBL who finally takes down the usurper. A justice payment on past sins while liberating a country he vowed to destroy. More power to the family if they can bring about truth. That said, the SEALS were innocents in this power play to grab at poll numbers.

Please explain more about the Biden thing. Are you saying the Joint Chief's know for a fact (or at least highly suspect) the order was issued by an ineligible CinC? If so, then that's a huge red flag which begs the question why aren't they pushing to end this charade of his?

Are the orders to get OBL subject to FOIA?

Do the officers get to see the signed order, and if so, who are they?

TIA,

3