Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: masadaman

Yes, it would be an impeachable. Whenever you see the word impeach, think ‘indictment of the President’. In fact the House + Senate can impeach and convict a President for just looking at them sideways — if they had the votes and the political will.

Your FYI part is spot on and shows a good understanding of what the situation is. Instead of taking all this time ranting and raving and diminishing the luster of the Conservative party, they should have worked on and lobbied for new law governing a definitive method of determining eligibility.

But that doesn’t help put money in the coffers of the various ‘cottage industries of controversy and conspiracy.

Baker vs. Carr is the definitive precedent regarding SCOTUS and the ‘Political Question Doctrine’ and specifically enumerates the reasons the SCOTUS will not take up a political case such as eligibility.

Quoting from a well known source and verifiable through LexisNexis.

Cases that are political in nature are marked by: [I see 4 of 6 that fit the birther issue quite nicely]

“Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;” as an example of this, Brennan cited issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, arguing that cases involving such matters would be “political questions”

“A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;”

“The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;”

“The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;”

“An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;”

“The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”


207 posted on 10/06/2014 2:57:43 PM PDT by Usagi_yo (Criticize, marginalize, demonize, criminalize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies ]


To: Usagi_yo
“The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
__

Right! Remember how COL Lind cited Baker in the Lakin case, leading Birthers to complain that she was denying discovery for fear of embarrassing the President?
209 posted on 10/06/2014 3:04:04 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Impeachments are tried by the Senate. Judgement shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit. The person accused shall be liable to indictment and punishment according to law.

The Executive is liable to impeachment.

A case is brought before the Supreme Court and a determination of ineligibility is made. The Executive is removed.

That is fact.


210 posted on 10/06/2014 3:07:23 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

Facts:

The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Impeachments are tried by the Senate. Judgement shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit.

The Executive is liable to impeachment.

The Judiciary has exclusive authority to determine questions of law.

Eligibility is a question of law & fact.

The Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law is in no way constrained by the Legislature’s authority to impeach.

Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility.

When a case is brought to the Court and a determination of ineligibility is made a person is barred from being seated in office or removed from office.


283 posted on 10/07/2014 9:25:10 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

Eligibility is not a political question.


286 posted on 10/07/2014 10:42:37 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

Eligibility is not a policy decision. Eligibility is determined according to law. The facts concerning an individual’s eligibility are judicially discoverable. A person is or is not eligible, as determined judicially.


287 posted on 10/07/2014 10:48:52 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

Questions of law are exclusively committed to the Judicial branch.

Questions of eligibility can be resolved only by the Judiciary.


288 posted on 10/07/2014 11:00:14 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

Eligibility is not determined by plebiscite.

Eligibility is not determined by Congress.

Eligibility is not determined by statute.

Eligibility is not determined by regulation.

Eligibility is determined by the Judiciary finding facts and applying law.


289 posted on 10/07/2014 11:08:35 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

To: Usagi_yo

To determine eligibility the Judiciary applies the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, which states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

They then fine the facts concerning an individual and determine whether that individual is a natural born citizen, thirty five years old, and fourteen years a resident within the United States.

If the individual is eligible then they are President; if the individual is not eligible then they are not President.


292 posted on 10/07/2014 11:24:47 PM PDT by Ray76 (We must destroy the Uniparty or be destroyed by them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson