Posted on 03/07/2011 9:28:25 AM PST by charlie72
On whether or not he meets the qualifications for holding the office.
Assume for the sake of discussion the Court concludes he is unqualified (because he was not born with undivided citizenship), then they say, "but we are powerless to do anything about it."
-- You just can't ignore the Constitution. --
LOL. Happens ALOT. Just depends on how, and what part is being torn asunder.
-- You want the Chief Justice, who administered the oath of office, to inquire as to whether Obama should be president? --
I'd like to see an opinion as to what constitute natural born citizen, in light of the 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision.
Since the court did not vote to grant cert then I would assume the motion to recuse Kagan and Sotomayor was moot. Why recuse them from a Supreme Court hearing that isn't going to happen?
Do you have any reading comprehension at all? I just TOLD YOU that the question isn’t whether Obama is the President. It is whether the Constitution allows him to ever ACT as President.
The 12th Amendment refers to the VP taking over in the case of “constitutional disability”. The 20th Amendment disables someone from acting as President if they have “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th.
The question is whether Obama is Constitutionally disabled from acting as President.
Do you understand what I am saying? I’m not talking about whether he can BE the President but whether he can ACT as President; the Constitution distinguishes between those 2 things. For instance, a President cannot “act as President” until taking the oath of office. And a President elect is not allowed to “act as President” without first qualifying - which is something that can still not be done even after Congress is all done with their part of counting the electoral votes and certifying the electoral winner. Being the electoral winner is ONE of the requirements that has to be met before a person can even BE the “President elect”; “qualifying” and taking the oath of office are required before the President elect can “act as President”, even if they automatically become the President at noon on Jan 20th.
If you can’t comprehend this then I’m not going to waste my time trying to talk sense to an ice pick.
Yeah - depending on the matter before it.
I point to the Heller decision, where SCOTUS couldn't even read it's own two page Miller precedent correctly.
It gets respect for the same reason the mafia does, they have the ability and will to use force of violence to get their way. But there is ZIP, NADA, ZERO for moral or logical authority there.
The motion was for them to recuse themselves from the hearing.
They conceded it by not giving a timely response, supposedly because they single-handedly changed the filed motion into a mere “request”.
And then they didn’t recuse themselves like they conceded that they would.
Lawless liars, the whole bunch of ‘em.
Dred Scott was a full man, a citizen, due all the rights of any citizen. Yet, to the Supreme Court, to the same kind of “most people” of that era of 1857, it was OBVIOUS he was not a full man.
Obama is not our President.
That might be fun, but the Court has a firm rule about not issuing advisory opinions.
I've written Boehner and Issa asking that they subpoena the Hawaiian birth records. Without committing themselves to any action, they "appreciate" my interest in the issue.
What would that have accomplished?
On that we agree. They are lawless. This is the ultimate treason.
As Popeye would say, “I am disgustipated.”
A freeper. You? Why dwaddle? Why tease? What is your point?
If you grant that Obama is the President, then the Constitution is clear: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, . . . "
And, that is the end of the matter.
Call and write Boehner!
Like, maybe, the rule of law?
The law says that judges are required to recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal or financial conflict of interest.
Look at what’s going on here. A fake gets into office, appoints cronies to SCOTUS, and in return for receiving a paycheck for life from the taxpayers, they make sure that no cases against the fake ever even make it to trial. Stalin would be proud. This is how dictators ALWAYS take over. He installs his own personal judiciary that will always do exactly as he tells them to do.
This is third-world crap. We’ve become Zimbabwe. No wonder Obama won’t confront Ahmadinejad; he IS Ahmadinejad.
You haven’t listened to a word I said. From here on out I do with you what I do with jamese777; I see the name and I scroll right past. Have a nice life.
Marbury v. Madison was essentially an advisory opinion.
The constitution is supposed to be a firm rule too, but in practice, it's quite elastic.
-- I've written Boehner and Issa asking that they subpoena the Hawaiian birth records. Without committing themselves to any action, they "appreciate" my interest in the issue. --
To the extent you expect any sort of meaningful response, you are wasting your time. Congress is corrupt too.
>>— We have a lawless Supreme Court. —
>
>Yeah - depending on the matter before it.
2005, Kelo v. New London — The Supreme Court essentially amended the 5th Amendment to say nothing restricting the usage of Eminent Domain.
New London seized Kelo’s land on the premise that the *projected* revenue increase in taxes satisfied the “for public use” requirement.
If Obama is not the President, then what is Hollister complaining about?
A Judge can rule for order in his Court, a House Hearing would quickly devolve into a circus. Still, though I suspect that your and Jamese777’s purpose is to work to such a result — for Obama and the Marxists rule by turning all proceedings into discord and circuses, it would be worth the risk. Even though I think, by this time, the deck in Hawaii may have been stacked with a particularly curious false artifact, so as to be like a IED to the GOP who would attempt to subpoena witnesses.
George Washington trusted to Divine Providence in December 1776. He could have come to terms, the British Whig faction then still was in charge of the conflict, they were willing to offer amnesty. Washington’s forces were at the end of their abilities and stamina, loss after loss, their numbers rendered a mere fraction of what they had been at Boston.
Washington gambled. A gamble with trust in Divine Providence.
A fraudulent usurper tyrant.
Who knows what might happen?
What law says that?
Regardless, had Sotomayor and Kagan been barred from the conference the court would still have denied cert.
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.