Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
Notice of Commission of (i) a Felony Cognizable by a Court of the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 4 - Misprision of Felony and (ii) Treason against the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 2382 - Misprision of Treason and Motion to Seal Document
COMES NOW Douglas Vogt: (i) pursuant to the obligations placed upon him by 18 U.S.C. 4 and 2382, upon both his Public and Sealed Affidavits attached hereto, and gives the requisite notice of the commission of felonies and/or treason by the following described persons cognizable by a Court of the United States and (ii) pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), moves the Court for an order sealing his attached envelope containing his Sealed Affidavit marked with the case caption and the phrase "FILED UNDER SEAL", and states as follows:
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
No, that *is* the argument from the Birthers. Or did you forget that in your confused state of mind?
Defining the term nbc is the first step to addressing the issue. Need the ussc to do this and they are shirking their responsibility.
IOW, the state courts have ruled that the Article II requirements are non-enforceable at all. Period.
How, then, can those lower courts be correct?
Tell me how the eligibility requirements could ever be enforced, if the states can’t do it because they’re not federal, and Congress can’t do it because 3USC Sec 15 doesn’t allow Congress to reject electoral votes certified by a State, and the federal courts can’t do it because it is a “political question”.
I agree, dead issue unless some group of officials come to the press and make news on national TV about it and IMO that isn’t going to happen.
Ends up IMO to be an exercise in futility.
Impeachment is given specifically to Congress to do. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Nice try at running from the FACT that you cannot find a single place in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to determine Presidential eligibility.
I agree with that. The carriage return lever rotates the roller through two or three detentes. You can manually rotate the roller up/down to get these intermediate “click stop” points.
What birthers are claiming that Congress determines eligibilty by deciding how people become naturalized citizens? The two issues are totally unrelated, and only somebody desperately trying to change the subject because they’re getting creamed by the facts would even try to conflate the 2 issues.
At this point, what *ISN’T* an exercise in futility?
Earnest question.
Start putting in people on both the Republican and Democrat side that are far more conservative from the bottom up.
My representative, Adrian Smith, is conservative. But he’s not done a thing to stop the corruption going on in DC.
Yes, we need to elect good people.
The truth is that DC is a black hole that swallows whatever good people we send. It’s like the Ring of Power in “The Lord of the Rings”. The longer you wear the ring, the more power it has over you. It makes a sniveling Gollum out of you. The Founders said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As long as Congress doesn’t need to fear anything BETWEEN elections, the ring will keep ensnaring everybody we send.
We need to have a way to bypass the treasonous media.
And we need the legal means to get redress for grievances against us. The whole claim that nothing is our business unless we alone are singled out for bad treatment is ridiculous. The only way they can get away with crimes is if they do the same crime to all of us? That is a RECIPE for tyranny. The only way to get away with murder is to murder everybody? Well, hey, it worked for Adolf Hitler... And that’s exactly where we’re headed.
Check the sign up date ... several obamaroids sign on in 2010, summer service to their little demon-god.
I was in favor of considering all the facts, not just the facts that suit us. It's a lot of little things, claims about fonts, etc that, once discussed to a sufficient level of detail can be seen as non-issues or red herrings.
If Obama was never eligible, he never lawfully occupied the office. So, the procedure would to remove him would be the same as removing an someone pretending to be the POTUS. Federal Marshals drag him out by the ear.
There is plenty of legal precedent for this position.
The open question would be if Biden is legally the VP, and therefore the successor POTUS.
Of course you are correct.
No matter what "high crimes and misdemeanors" the man has been shown to have committed; no matter the proofs presented, only the Congress has the constitutional authority to remove him.
IOW, if 500 sheriifs and 500 prosecutors got him into some court and that court were to find him guilty of anything, any trial or its outcome wouldn't mean a damn thing. The House must impeach and the Senate must convict, or that fellow ain't goin' nowhere. When it comes to a sitting president, that's the way it works.
Simply not going to happen. Right, Wrong, and the Law don't intersect here.
As I’ve posted several times over the years: The Election certification process *is* Congresses method of affirming eligibility. You have not presented a strong enough argument against that.
Go back to my hypothetical. Read it, analyze the consequences of each, then perhaps you’ll understand why it’s purely a political process at this point and that SCOTUS can do nothing about it.
Go blow smoke somewhere else.
The whole Birther issues is about Obama’s eligibility based on short comings of the providence of his citizenship, and is a fools errand.
Do something more constructive like: Changing the laws to suit your misgivings for the *next* presidential election.
Because as things are going with the birther issues, my version of why has a lot more traction and foundation in truth than yours.
You are a troll. You refuse to engage with the information and questions I’ve presented. Congress HAS NO FREAKING CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THE ELECTORAL VOTES THAT ARE CERTIFIED TO THEM!! That is what the statute clearly states. Where are you seeing any discretion - any room, even - for Congress to have any say in the matter of whether Barack Obama can be elected as President? That statute clearly says they have NO DISCRETION. What “convincing” are you looking for, beyond the actual statute’s explicit language?
You are a waste of my time. You got nothin’ but are willing to make it last all day...
That has nothing to do with naturalization. You’re just trying to sidestep the issue and jam up the conversation. Sandbagging and gaslighting. It’s what this regime pays its trolls to do.
“the state courts have ruled that the Article II requirements are non-enforceable at all. Period.”
No, the state courts have ruled that existing state laws do not require the SoS to examine the qualifications for a Presidential candidate.
There is nothing preventing a state legislature from changing the state law to require a SoS to investigate Presidential candidates’ qualifications. But that has not happened yet.
Your argument amounts to “the birthers”. You lose.
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.