Posted on 06/04/2010 5:20:53 PM PDT by tutstar
So, who determines if Obama is operating within the legal confines of the office he holds?
haha BWS on YOU!!
JB is an American and has been writing articles for a few years now.
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
probably ron gochez incognito here on FR, sure wouldn’t want them in my foxhole!
“IOW, so long as the authority is operating within the legal confines of the office they hold, everything they do, to include every order they issue, is legal.”
Well you see that is the issue. The judiciary apparently doesn’t have the gonads to legislate against all the Oneness’s illegal activities.
legislate—> Try his sorry ass in court.
The principle of judicial review was established in a landmark 1803 Supreme Court case called Marbury v. Madison. So, it's the judiciary who enjoys and frequently exercises such review.
The Congress also has oversight authority, to include the power of impeachment. In fact, the Constitution only confers upon Congress the power to remove a sitting President.
So you know what he means by "prerogative"? Do tell!
What "illegal" activities do you refer? In this particular instance, the author is speaking about the President's authority to issue orders to the military. The Constitution is clear, the President is the Command-in-Chief, ergo the office of the President inherently possesses the power to issue military orders.
Legally speaking, it doesn't get much more elementary. I'm not sure why so many can't grasp something so easy. I suppose it says more about our public education system, than anything else.
And this makes him an authority on American law? Apparently not.
How do you spell douche-bag? Did I get it right?
Sounds like an incentive to fraud and usurpation to me. At least as applied to this situtation.
Would you still say the same thing in a situation where an election was fraudulent, that ballot boxes were stuffed, or vote counts just plain made up in critical states? If not, how is the situation of a President who fails to meet the basic Constitutional eligiblity criteria any different?
Sure we have heard it from slimey street thugs like you before in here.
Now what is prerogative if you and your buddy are so cogent?
But you are? Really, gives us your credentials and we will check them out.
I think what OldDoucheHand is trying to say is that if someone impersonates a police officer any tickets he issued that would have been issued by a real police officer are legally valid, and if you got one you’d be required to pay the fines or do the time.
Well, depending on the particular elected office (and especially in state positions), the judiciary may have the power to review the election results and remove a fraudulently elected official even after his installation. But, that doesn't mean that the actions taken by that official prior to his removal would be nullified.
This particular case is problematic because the President has already been installed in office, and the judiciary has no constitutional authority to remove a sitting President, even if that installation was defective in some way. And, if they can't remove him, then they have no business examining his credentials ex post facto, or so they would argue. That's fine. That's why we have a Congress, who is Constitutionally vested to address such infirmities in the Executive via impeachment.
If Congress refuses to act, then the people have the power of the ballot box, and can replace those representatives with ones who are earnest about fulfilling their Constitutional obligations.
With respect to Lakin specifically (which is ostensibly what this thread is about), the judiciary to especially include the military judiciary has no authority to inspect the bona fides of the Commander-in-Chief. So long as the office he holds empowers him to issue orders, those orders are presumptively lawful unless they are plainly unlawful, facially.
How can the supreme court rule on Obama’s eligibility if no one in the lower courts will allow a US citizen ‘standing’?
Under an unlawful commander, every order is an unlawful order. This means that above all other citizens, members of the military have a unique stake in the matter of who is issuing military orders, and as a result, a very real right to get an answer to that question.
Good God, you're a child a "nerd and vacant" child. An absolutely idiotic child.
What about removing a usurper who is not eligible to be President? It's not the same thing you know.
This whole "defacto officer" doctrine and "standing"/"justiciblity" arguments are more than a little crazy when applied to the office of President of the United States. Under those arguments, someone could shoot the President, declare himself President and any actions he took, would be presumed to be legal under the "de facto officer" doctrine. He would be acting under the color of the office of President. Assuming Congress did not move to impeach him, apparently only if the VP, did not go along, could anything be done to remove him and negate his actions, because he'd be the only one directly injured (other than the family of the former President of course, but that would be a private injury not one impinging on the usurper continuing to hold office) by having someone in office who had not met the Constitutional requirements, such as getting the majority of the electoral vote, taking the oath of office, being 35 or older and being a natural born citizen. The usurper could have someone administer the oath and he'd just be missing one little criteria. The same number someone not a natural born citizen, but meeting all the other eligibility criteria, would be missing.
If the VP went along, perhaps as co-conspirator, then no one else would have "standing" to challenge him or his acts in the courts. Or so it would seem as a logical extension of the arguments being made in this situation.
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.