Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
Understood.
When did SCOTUS opine thusly?
"Identifies" as Jane Doe #2?
Tells us a lot.
How many forgers does he know?
And how, out of all the forgers in the world did he find the right one?
This would carry more weight if Vogt were a typewriter expert, rather than another self-proclaimed expert in digital imagery.
One thing I did learn about manual typewriters is that that they are notoriously unreliable. What they do looks very different from what today's electronic printers put out, and that's all the more true when you add the human element.
Still, I hope they throw the book at Savannah Guthrie. Is the death penalty an option?
You dismiss age and residency requirements, are they political questions?
Are you saying that if a POTUS was convicted in impeachment or if his Cabinet declared him incompetent it would be the courts who would remove him from office? Which court? Who would bring the case? Where are these procedures described?
Except in this case, there is no law to apply. What we have is a constitutional enumeration of the responsibility of Congress. To certify the election. They have done this through a negative affirmation process.
Very good answer. I’m glad somebody sees past the facade of the birther movement and recognizes it as a political animal.
The SCOTUS has no enforcement power. They cannot annul the election, they cannot order the President to resign and they cannot order somebody to replace the President and they cannot compel Congress to impeach the President. Given that, I fail to see why SCOTUS would even consider reviewing the case — if it ever got that far. — It would merely add Fuel to the Political Crisis.
Nowhere does the Constitution say Congress determines eligibility.
Article II does not require enabling legislation. Eligibility is a legal requirement specified by the Constitution. Legal questions are resolved by the Judiciary.
Supreme Courts have removed an Executive who fails Constitutional muster.
I’m not ignoring your question. You just keep answering it yourself. Congress certifies the election. <-— that’s a period.
Yep, all these bleepers are all mouth and no action. Used to get all torqued up. Screw it, have no control over it other than being prepared. Life is too short.
I think we’re responding to somebody who will not engage with questions or facts.
Obama’s whole game plan is to demoralize. Get us all to believe that everything is hopeless. That’s why Ted Cruz is dangerous to them; he gives us hope.
I’ve long thought that the leadership was threatened, most likely with another electronic run on the bank to collapse the US (and perhaps world) economy. Others have thought the leaders were paralyzed by fear of race riots if Obama was removed. Maybe they thought that once Obama bared his teeth people would be more willing to really see the evidence/warning signs that he is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even with the media covering for him, I think a growing number of people are seeing that he is not American. He wants to hurt Americans as much as possible, he is siding with all our enemies and flipping off all our allies. We (supposedly; maybe the dead voters...) “passed” him so we could see what was in him, but unlike “Green Eggs and Ham” (as Ted Cruz noted), we HAVE tried him and we still don’t like what he’s serving up. The hard part is that the whole while we’ve been “trying him out” he’s been entrenching himself like a cancer within all our infrastructure. What a mess of mixed metaphors, and yet none of them is to portray the ugliness of what’s going on.
I just wish somebody would finally care about the truth and speak it on a national stage.
the Constitution has to specifically say that a political body is tasked with the job.
Okay, point out where SCOTUS is given this specific task?
So it's a political process because only Congress can impeach or ostensibly through impeachment de-certify the election. As an individual, or even as a minority group, you do not have the jurisdiction, standing, nor the right to declare Obama not eligible. Any argument from you declarying it so is pretty well much invalid. Which is why this hasn't gained any traction while looking for a judicial remedy. None exists.
Certifying the election means accepting every electoral vote that is properly certified by a State. Congress is not given any opportunity to address Constitutional eligibility in the electoral certification.
If you say otherwise, then show me where, in either the statutes or Constitution, Congress is ever given that authority. I’ve invited you many times and your answer is silence. OK, then. We know that you know the answer and that all your talk about it being a “political question” is just BS.
Agreed. I noticed the repetitive non-substantive responses.
Never stop fighting for the truth.
Yes it does. The election certification process.
The SCOTUS doesn’t rule on the constitutionality of Constitutional Enumerations.
So, explain to me exactly what your fantasy judicial process is where the courts remove Obama from office?
Sources ..... where SCOTUS has ruled on a sitting President as ineligible.
It most certainly does.
It gives Congress authority to certify the election. That *IMPLICITY* includes eligibility. Certification means that all parts of the electoral process are acceptable.
You’re confused because it’s a negative affirmation process. Make sure you know what that means before responding. Your arguments have been really sloppy and weak.
Article III, Section 2
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... - to Controversies between two or more States... - between Citizens of different States...”
The “political question” doctrine is that the courts don’t address issues that the Constitution specifically gives to somebody else. For instance, the courts are not the place for a Congressman’s eligibility to be determined, because the Constitution directly says that Congress has that responsibility. It never does that for Presidential eligibility.
Another principle of Constitutional interpretation is that there are no words of the Constitution that are intended to be unenforceable. If nobody else was expressly given the job of doing something, the courts are required to handle any controversies or cases that arise because of what is in the Constitution.
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.