Skip to comments.World Tribune: Report Detailing Obama ID Fraud Evidence Will Soon Be Presented To Congress
Posted on 07/09/2013 7:26:23 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
click here to read article
Impeachment is a political act of the Legislative Branch.
Criminal acts are prosecuted by the Judicial Branch.
Document forgery, fraud, etc, are criminal acts. A person committing these acts is liable for prosecution; holding Office is no shield, these are not Official acts which would be shielded.
Conviction and imprisonment would be insurmountable disabilities necessitating impeachment.
Of course these particular criminal acts would mean that there is no President and therefore impeachment is impossible. The Constitution demands that “No Person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President”, it can not then require that an ineligible person be impeached. To contend otherwise would negate Article II’s imperative that “No Person except a natural born Citizen... be eligible”. A person who is not President can not be impeached. Not only is it illogical to impeach an ineligible person, such a reading is an invalid construction.
Anyone notice that the WH/President schedule has no entries beyond the current day?
If not for "us," then for posterity.
The truth must be known.
They have done stories on this issue before:
"Lt. Col. Lakin's letter to his Commander in Chief
Thursday, April 8, 2010
"The medias birth certificate hypocrisy
Friday, June 8th, 2012
"Congressional probe of Arpaio evidence could dwarf Watergate
Sunday, July 22nd, 2012
The last two of which where written by Jeffrey T. Kuhner who is a frequent guest host of the Savage Nation (yet, the topic isn't really spoken on that show).
Just an FYI.
There is something to this, as I'm not sure impeachment would be available/necessary because if he is found to not be a "natural born Citizen" as the Constitution mandates, then he is a usurper holding the office of Commander in Chief in direct violation of the Constitution.
Impeachment is for a President, not a usurper of the office.
Unless, of course, one has pigmentation immunity.
I do think we need to research this. I thought a governor in the upper mid west was removed after he was elected and was found to be ineligible. I also remember another similar case as well. Not sure of invoking the 20th at this point, that was the responsibility of Congress.
But we can’t accept impeachment, it means he was president and all his “accomplishments” stand.
THOMAS H. MOODIE, 19th Governor of N.D. was popularly elected by the people and sworn into office. He was later removed from office by the state's supreme court after it was determined he was ineligible for that office. Thomas H. Moddie was a usurper of an executive office.
As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed. After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935.
Thank you, it was 1935 which is why my memory was vague...lol
Would that be the basement of the national outhouse?
My resulting question would be, is the ineligible person’s acts while in office then rendered void?
Good question. Don't know what became of any (if any) executive decisions Moodie made while in office for the 5 or 6 weeks he usurped that office.
I believe this would be some seriously uncharted territory.
If a person is not eligible to hold the office from the get go, under what authority could they then have made any decisions?
The same could be asked of Chester Arthur.
If no one brings the case against them, and is heard, I would assume nothing would happen to their decisions.
Someone (some people) would have to make a formal challenge.
Of course, the first challenge would be for those "in power" to determine that he isn't a "natural Born Citizen" as required for the office. Then, what he has done becomes the next challenge.
A federal court ruled on the question regarding Obama’s status in 2009. The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and then again at the Supreme Court of the United States and it was not reversed, so it stands.
Barnett, Keyes, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—removal for any reason—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
Is that you Hillary?
In what form?
Announced by whom in Congress?
What result should one expect from this "presentation?"
Unless these continual credibility-destroying pronunciamientos are necessary for fundraising, which I can well understand, our chaps ought to keep their mouths shut and just do that which they are a-threatening to do.
Donald Trump, GOYA and run some ads about The Cold Case Posse. That might get some public pressure put on Congress. Or a petition?
Did that court find him to be a “natural born Citizen” as required by the Constitution?
After the ruling of the California Supreme Court, which is quite well reasoned and substantial, I fear we can forget about "Constitutional Eligibility" as a prime mover in getting this guy out of office.
Judge Carter, who does not strike me as an enemy, said that the courts have a role in determining Constitutional Eligibility BEFORE an election. AFTER the election, he tells us, an electorally certified and sworn-in sitting POTUS, eligible or not, falls under the jurisdiction of Congress, and Congress alone. OTOH, as Ray points out, document forgery, fraud, etc, are criminal acts. A person committing these acts is liable for prosecution; holding Office is no shield, these are not Official acts which would be shielded.
Should the evidence ever make it to Congress and he is impeached by the House for the 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' of presenting forged documents, then that for which we have devoutly wished will be accomplished. Removal and disgrace.
That still leaves us with the unanswered question of Constitutional Eligibility in the case of others. In the meantime FRolks, we gotta win an election in 2014. Where's the Program? The Plan? The Leader?
A person who is not the President can not be Impeached. No Person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President, if a person is ineligible they are not President.
No disagreement from me there, Ray. However, neither of us is cashing a SCOTUS paycheck at the moment, nor a CASC ducat either.
This is the cognitive dissonance that's going to fracture the country. He is, but he ain't.
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.