Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
Since when if forgery and fraud tried by popular opinion or un-educated opinion? So really, forgery and fraud should be decided by public opinion outside a court and with no evidence?
No new subject has been introduced. It was from the beginning a suit challenging Obama’s use of forged identity documents to get on the ballot.
“Since when if forgery and fraud tried by popular opinion or un-educated opinion? So really, forgery and fraud should be decided by public opinion outside a court and with no evidence?”
__
I’m sorry, are you having reading comprehension problems? That’s not at all what I said.
Forgery and fraud are criminal offenses, and they need to be pursued by law enforcement professionals and the criminal justice system.
They, the professionals, determine whether there are grounds for believing that a crime has taken place. There is nothing to suggest that any appropriate branch of law enforcement has taken notice of any supposed criminal activities regarding the President’s eligibility.
You tell me, then - why wouldn’t Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves from those conferences, since there was nothing to be lost and it would get rid of any appearance of impropriety?
The acts performed while it was unknown that they illegally held the office would stand under the de facto officer doctrine, but the justices themselves would not be able to CONTINUE illegally holding the office. So their jobs WERE at stake.
Nowhere does the Constitution say that “the courts have a role to play” in punishing tobacco companies, deciding whether Obamacare is a tax, deciding whether government can grab individuals’ land and give it to others, etc.
Why do the courts think they have a role in those issues when it’s never specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
I’ve already said to you (and you have promptly ignored and pretended to forget) that the ONE JUDICIAL OUTCOME THAT IS MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION is to stop an unqualified President elect or Vice President elect from “acting as President’. If you were going to make a case for the Constitution not giving the courts a role in a specific issue you could make that case for all the above things, but the ONE THING you could NOT make that case for is Presidential eligibility, because they are all that is left to rule on and carry out the requirements of the 20th Amendment because the political process has all been completed by the time there even EXISTS a “President elect”.
In Washington State any elector, has the legal right to allege that the person whose name is about to be placed on the ballot does not have the right to be on the ballot. One fellow who filed such a challenge brought in evidence and exhibits which proved to the Judge, who acted as a trier of fact, that the evidence showed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the candidate was not eligible because he lied about where he lived. If you believe a candidate is using forged identity documents to gain access to the ballot you have the right, in Washington State, to present that evidence in court. Exercising that right is not frivolous.
“why wouldn’t Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves from those conferences”
__
What conferences? You really don’t understand, do you? These cases were never discussed at any conferences. They were on the deadlist well in advance of the conference. They never saw the inside of the conference room. Sotomayor and Kagan were in the room, and the discussions in which they participated were exclusively about other cases.
____
“The acts performed while it was unknown that they illegally held the office would stand under the de facto officer doctrine, but the justices themselves would not be able to CONTINUE illegally holding the office.”
__
Absolute nonsense. The doctrine says precisely the opposite. Their appointments are held to be valid, which means they are lifetime positions just like any other federal judicial appointment.
Here’s the “pecking order:”
The Vice President Joseph Biden
Speaker of the House John Boehner
President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy
Secretary of State John Kerry
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (retiring)
Attorney General Eric Holder
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Commerce John Bryson
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis ( retiring)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (retiring)
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (retiring)
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Since no act of Congress has ever determined or stated that a president-elect did not qualify and no court decision has ever ruled that a president-elect did not qualify, every president-elect has qualified by Inauguration Day.
There has never been a grand jury investigation, an indictment, a congressional hearing, a criminal trial or a conviction of anyone for the felony crimes of forgery or identity theft.
All there have been is allegations and Cold Case Posse press conferences.
“I’ve already said to you (and you have promptly ignored and pretended to forget) that the ONE JUDICIAL OUTCOME THAT IS MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION is to stop an unqualified President elect or Vice President elect from “acting as President’”
__
LOL, you have said it, and you’ve said it many times! Problem is, you’re the only one who’s said it. I can find no scholarly legal support for the idea for the idea that the 20th Amendment mandates a judicial outcome.
You see, you keep bringing us back to the same point. No matter how strongly you believe these things, you are failing to come to grips with the fact that those who are in a legal position to render the judgments are in widespread disagreement with your ideas. Of course, it could be that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong, but I hope that’s not a conviction in which you have a great deal invested.
That is the biggest piece of hooey I’ve heard in a long time. Judges and courts overturn elections all the time. The 20th Amendment REQUIRES the outcome of an election to be overturned if the person chosen by the voters and/or Congress have failed to meet the requirements of the Constitution. Do you honestly believe that Bob Bauer and Nancy Pelosi are more likely to believe that the democrat-controlled Congress would hold them accountable for nominating an eligible President than a court of law which has to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence (and can actually compel the production of essential evidence and legally determine things like birth facts, which Congress can’t)? These are Pelosi’s colleagues, for heaven’s sake. These are the people that SHE CHOOSES WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WILL SERVE ON.
No, the Founding Fathers had 3 separate branches of government with separate powers and providing checks and balances because they knew that any one branch would NOT hold itself accountable. They are peers. They count on scratching each others’ backs in order to make their sausage. There is no way in heck that Congress is going to hold its own political leadership accountable to the law. The only branch that holds either the legislature or the executive accountable to the law is the judiciary. Throw that out and you’ve got imbalance, loss of accountability, and certain corruption.
Furthermore, why do you think that Congress is even CAPABLE of interpreting and applying the US Constitution? The people elect some dirt farmer to go to Washington DC and all of a sudden that makes that dirt farmer an expert on interpreting the Constitution? How about we elect people to be our brain surgeons too, why we’re at it, to make sure that no brain surgeon becomes “too powerful”?
And you wanna know the worst irony in what you’re saying? ONE JUDGE IN WASHINGTON IN PRACTICE THREW OUT THE STATUTE that required that he make sure that election fraud and/or errors were corrected. YOu wanna talk about tyranny? THAT is tyranny. Lawless judges are tyranny, and that’s exactly what you are supporting. This judge made stuff up out of whole cloth and totally ignored the text of the law. When the decision was appealed his buddies at the state Supreme Court scratched his back and hit Linda Jordan with a $13,000 fine for asking that 6 particular relevant legal issues be addressed (but really to punish her for indirectly pointing out that they were all committing misprision of fraud and forgery).
And another thing. You folks keep saying that the judiciary shouldn’t be able to overturn an election. But what if John McCain had challenged his eligibility? Should the courts refuse to hear the case because they CAN’T overturn an election? Roe v Wade overturned election results in almost every state in the union. Should the courts have said to Roe (or to ANYBODY who challenged state laws), “You can’t appeal these laws because that was the political process and we aren’t authorized to undo the results of elections and the political process”? What you’re saying is making absolutely no sense. This is precisely what the Constitution and the judiciary that interprets and applies the Constitution is FOR. This is what makes us a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and not a democracy.
A democracy is where the people can vote to behead infidels and that’s it. The political process can say that only Muslim speech is allowed and that’s it. There are no guarantees. A basic, simple vote decides EVERYTHING, and there is nothing that is more sacred than what 1 deciding voter feels like voting for on a particular day.
Obama is trying to rule as if this was a democracy. The 51% decide to take all the money from the 49%; so let it be written, so let it be done. The supposed President says nobody can have guns. Shazamm! That’s all there is to it. THAT is tyranny. Democracy, where the 51% can say whatever they want with no guarantees for anybody, is tyranny.
The courts exist to make sure that doesn’t happen. They are what separates us from a banana republic. If the courts have no power to hold the political process accountable to the Constitution, then we are Egypt, or Iran, or Zimbabwe.
What are you doing here, if that is what you’re after? That’s not pro-America. LL, why are you even a lawyer if you believe that there are no guaranteed rights and no branch of government that can hold the system accountable to a higher principle than sausage-making expedience and smoky backroom deals?
This isn’t piddles. This is everything America is about. If we don’t get this right we are dead as a nation.
A military guy a few years ago was found to be pretending to be a military officer when he in fact wasn’t. The orders he gave stood because of the doctrine you mentioned, but the guy himself was court-martialed and thrown in the brig.
What you are saying is wrong. Getting in an office and pretending you can lawfully hold that office does not mean you’ve got a free pass for life. Once it is known that you cannot lawfully hold the office you can’t lawfully hold the office.
What you quoted as the definition only said that the ACTS PERFORMED UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY (when everybody thought they could lawfully hold that position) are considered binding. It said nothing about the person being able to keep that position once it is known they cannot legally do so.
Good LORD!! Sheriff Arpaio is conducting a criminal investigation because he’s got probable cause for forgery and fraud perpetrated on the people of Maricopa County, Arizona. He’s had 2 press conferences about it. Yet you say that “There is nothing to suggest that any appropriate branch of law enforcement has taken notice of any supposed criminal activities regarding the President’s eligibility.”
You know that and you are flat-out lying. Just stop wasting everybody’s time. Lies are an utter waste of time. Only a sicko would find it entertaining to get on here and lie.
You might think that the loss of this country is a big hilarious joke that you can piddle away your time on, but if that’s what you’re really about then you REALLY don’t belong here at Free Republic.
“Getting in an office and pretending you can lawfully hold that office does not mean you’ve got a free pass for life.”
__
Why don’t you read it again, I don’t think you’ve understood me.
Of course, if Obama is found to be ineligible, he will be removed from office. However, his appointments are considered to have been valid, and therefore Kagan and Sotomayor retain their lifetime positions.
That’s what Judge Robertson claimed. He claimed that the court case was frivolous because Obama’s eligibility had already been decided on Twitter.
I think we should defund Robertson’s position, since what he does could easily be handled by Twitter at no cost to taxpayers.
Whether they discussed it or not is irrelevant. Recusing themselves from conference means they recuse themselves from having a vote on whether to hear the case.
‘Good LORD!! Sheriff Arpaio is conducting a criminal investigation because he’s got probable cause for forgery and fraud perpetrated on the people of Maricopa County, Arizona. He’s had 2 press conferences about it. Yet you say that “There is nothing to suggest that any appropriate branch of law enforcement has taken notice of any supposed criminal activities regarding the President’s eligibility.”’
__
Think about what you’re saying. The best example you can give of an “appropriate branch of law enforcement tak[ing] notice of any supposed criminal activities” is a group that’s held two press conferences? That’s how you know they’re the appropriate law enforcement body, because they held press conferences?
Come on, is that really the best you can do?
“Recusing themselves from conference means they recuse themselves from having a vote on whether to hear the case.”
__
Good lord, don’t you understand this at all?
There was no vote. There was no conference. It is understood that some cases will be deadlisted unless a single justice expresses an interest in it, in which case a response will be requested.
When not a single justice expressed an interest in these cases, they remained on the deadlist. There was no vote. They simply died a natural death because not a single justice wanted to pursue it any further.
And, as I’ve already pointed out, no one’s jobs would have been at stake, so there would not be those grounds for recusal anyway.
I just happened to update this thread. Looks like a member of the opp. team “engaging”.
Flak, target and all that.
How can he qualify without any birth facts?
Obama’s unlawfully-appointed Supreme Court justices held places in the conference votes so that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito could not do what the Constitution prescribed and decide the “controversy” that even Obama acknowledged existed and was serious.
What a joke the whole idea of “accountability” is when the foreign enemy combatant installs corrupting software (Kagan and Sotomayor, his illegal agents) into a program (SCOTUS) and then that virus decides whether to alert everybody to the fact that a virus has taken over the legitimate system.
It’s not Constitutional. But then if the people who are supposed to obey the Constitution decide to be a virus instead all it means is that the whole computer gets fried.
Don’t come crying to me when this fried computer ends up destroying everything you love. I don’t want to hear you EVER have the audacity to talk about the lawlessness of Congress, or the government overstepping its bounds, or anything else that has to do with something bad in this government. This is the bed you’ve made and by golly you’re going to lie in it.
I did NOT make this bed but I’ll be stuck in it too. My day of vindication will come after this place is destroyed. I wish I could have spared everybody what is to come, but I can’t. You’ll get what you’ve got coming, but that brings me no joy.
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.