Never said it wasn't, just that it's not in the Constitution itself. Unless you can point it out to me. Never mind, I know it's not there, Cntrl F is my friend.
And we all know, very well, too that people are not required to give information about themselves or make statements that are requested of them and are allowed to be silent, requiring the state to find and provide “proof” in order to convict...
In criminal trials, yes, that's in the fifth amendment. But you can be forced to give up evidence against yourself, even in a criminal matter. Per the fourth amendment, it takes a Warrant issued by a judge, but it can be done. That's what it would take in this case, an act of a court of competent jurisdiction, even though this is not (yet) a criminal matter.
You see, I am sworn by oath to support and defend the Constitution so I've read it very closely, and check it frequently rather than relying on my increasingly faulty memory.
Guilty until proved innocent is not in the Constitution, it's part of the Common Law. That's all I'm saying.
And BTW, I've never been to law school either. But my daughter and her husband have.
You said — “Never said it wasn’t, just that it’s not in the Constitution itself. Unless you can point it out to me. Never mind, I know it’s not there, Cntrl F is my friend.”
Well, that’s part of what makes a lot of this stuff so crazy at times. People do know certain rights that they have. We’ve all been taught and told and have discussed them before. But, it’s only the lawyers and the judges who are going to get down to the actual citations and court precedents and all the various in and outs of it all.
The bottom line is what most people should know and they don’t have to be a lawyer to know it or even get citations to know this stuff. Do I know that I don’t have to talk to the police in answering whatever questions they want to ask. If I don’t, I should... LOL...
What’s the citation for it? Who cares... I’m not going to talk anyway... :-)
Do I know that I’m presumed innocent until proven guilty. If not, I should. Am I going to want a citation before I act accordingly? Nope... Am I going to presume someone guilty before having been judged that? Nope. (But, apparently some people do...). I may have a suspicion that someone is lying about the fact of being guilty, but I’ll also understand that unless it’s proven, nothing is going to come of it and the person is *still* innocent, in the meantime, even if I am suspicious.
And on and on it goes...., with more stuff like this...
—
You then said — “In criminal trials, yes, that’s in the fifth amendment. But you can be forced to give up evidence against yourself, even in a criminal matter. Per the fourth amendment, it takes a Warrant issued by a judge, but it can be done. That’s what it would take in this case, an act of a court of competent jurisdiction, even though this is not (yet) a criminal matter.”
Well, it doesn’t even have to be a criminal trial. You don’t even have to be arrested. You don’t even have to be “suspected” of a crime — and — you have that right to be silent. Now, perhaps a court can compel certain things, if one is facing criminal proceedings (possibly), but that doesn’t mean that *you* personally have to be testifying against yourself or say anything. If a court wants to hunt around for something specific, I guess they can do that sort of thing, but they can’t “fish it out of your own mouth” [i.e., in “your words” although they may be able to fish something else out of your mouth..., like saliva... LOL...] unless you decided to give up that right, on your own.
Now, ask me for citations... I’ll say get them yourself, because I’m going to do those things, according to what I know, and according to some lawyer that I have who will be looking for those rights... :-)
AND — likewise, I know that the President of the United States is not going to be compelled to give testimony against himself. If someone can “find” evidence, then maybe some information will get out — but those same privacy rights that any other citizen has, so does the President (and in some instances a lot more than ordinary citizens). Of course, Obama isn’t President yet, but he soon will be and then it’s another ball game.
So, if someone doesn’t do something in just a few days (a mere few weeks), then — like I said — it’s another ball game and it becomes tremendously more difficult to do anything about removing Obama from office (after being installed as President).
We’ve all seen how our laws work, we’ve seen enough criminal trials, we’ve seen enough with politicians (”think” — Bill Clinton and the Impeachment and Trial... :-)...). It’s obvious how things are going to work. Things are going to work in the present and in the future, just like they have in the past.
That’s why I say that one must put into place these state laws that mandate, very specifically, certain actions on qualifications for President, or else the candidate cannot be put on the ballot and the Electoral College votes (for that state) will not be submitted with that candidate’s name.
The most common sense approach, instead of pulling a “rabbit out of a hat” in some arcane and mysterious language that no one knows a thing about (especially not the Supreme Court, either, apparently...) — is to use ordinary common sense and ‘beef up the law” regarding what the problem is.
That’s an ordinary legislative solution — which, by the way — is not “conspiracy minded” or “far out” or “extreme” in any way. We do “legislative solutions” all the time with our legislators. This is *ordinary* in the most basic way.
The stuff that I’ve seen about how to get Obama out of office is so convoluted, one might think a poster could be a good science fiction writer...
I say, *do the ordinary thing* to get Obama out of office...