Posted on 07/22/2009 7:22:24 PM PDT by Grig
If he's ineligible, he's not the President. However I'm sure they'd have to see proof. Maybe they should be looking for it? Maybe they are?
You really are a delusional troll.
Well, that definition has been worked out carefully after years and years on Free Republic and it’s the only definition that works 100% of the time...
So, it’s passed the tests... LOL... And FReepers love the definition...
Not their responsibility, on several levels.
However, I would LOVE to have a top-tier council of generals call the TOTUS aside in a private meeting:
“Look, sir, we now have 2,326 officers and 8,772 enlisted members, all of whom were about to ship over to Afghanistan and Iraq, who have instead filed suit questioning your qualifications to serve as commander in chief. We can’t cancel all of their orders, like we did with Major Cook, and now we’re no longer able to support our overseas commitments due to a personnel shortage. Would you please make public that damned birth certificate, sir, so we can do our jobs?”
After Zero refuses, a couple of SEALS go jogging from Pearl Harbor at 3 a.m. and — surprise, surprise — end up right in front of the Birth Records Office in Honolulu.
The government entity that is, under the Constitution, charged with dealing with the executive branch in a case like this is the Congress. It is not the military. One of the reason the Constitution stipulates the Congress, not the military, is that the Founding Fathers were familiar with the history of Rome and knew the danger posed by a Praetorian guard. The Constitution does not say the military can remove a President, it says the Congress, and only the Congress, has the authority to do so.
Like I said... anyone who disagrees with me.... etc, and etc... (works well, doesn’t it...)
They just aren’t doing it in the right state yet.
You said — If he’s ineligible, he’s not the President.
—
But, until “he’s not the President” — “he is the President”... :-)
Of course, but the difference is that the requirement is in their constitution. It's not in ours, except for the requirement to take the oath to support the Constitution. But Senators, Represenatives, and judges, take the same oath. Even local officials swear to support the Constitution of the United States, and generally that of their state as well. National Guard Officers, being dual hatted as Federal reservists and organized state militia, take separate oaths to support both. (Been there done that, in a state not the one I resided in. Couldn't have gotten away with that, probably, if I hadn't already been a reserve officer)
Why would we conclude anything of the sort???
none of those guys ever produced a fake fraudulent counterfiet birth certificate. Obama did. None of those guys had any parents that weren’t citizens.
There’s no comparison. You are making an ass of yourself by attempting to do so.
So knock it off.
LOL your starting to lose me as well. If he was not eligible to be President he never was President and can never be president.
being an old person, I am reminded of something I heard: Don’t pick a fight with an old person... If they are too old to fight, they will just shoot you...
AMEN
Not quite. The VP only becomes President upon the removal from office or death of the President. (25th amendment, section 1). According to the 20th amendment, section 3:
if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Clearly in the case of an ineligible, or unqualified, President elect the VP elect then acts as a President, but only temporarily.
You said — Why would we conclude anything of the sort???
—
The reasoning that was given was the following...
He never demonstrated that he met the constitutional requirements. Until he does, we must conclude that he does not.
And those that I listed never demonstrated that they met the constitutional requirements, as they never showed their birth certificates either. Thus, that’s the result of the type of reasoning used...
—
My reasoning, on the other hands, is that Obama has done the same thing as other Presidential candidates in signing sworn statements that he is qualified for office. And since those others were qualified on that basis of their signed forms (no birth certificate required, no other proof required, of them) Obama is in good company with our other Presidents (in that regard).
I’m only 72 but i’m not infirm or unarmed!
” ...leftists really don’t want to end the controversy and figure that they’re getting more political mileage out of this whole issue than they would if they ended it...
” ....especially with the large volume of articles by the leftists about the birth certificate issue”
That theory makes sense only if one looks at the ‘large volume of articles’ in the past month or so. It has only been recently that it has been discussed by anyone in the media, including Fox. Then a sudden deluge. It’s now been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, plus written articles in everything from the WaPo to Vanity Fair.
They appear to have changed tactics midstream from ignoring it completely to speaking/writing in an effort to make ‘birthers’ appear as nothing but kooks. In the meanwhile, the more they talk about it, the more people become aware of the issue. Doesn’t make a lot of sense as a strategy.
Screw Jack Bauer, he just breaks things and kills people.
What would Jack Ryan do?
“Removing Obama for having been ineligible rests with Congress or the Supreme Court, not with the Army. Do you not really understand this?”
That’s a plausible sounding argument, but I’m not sure it’s quite correct. Since Barry is presumably an imposter, any federal law enforcement agent could simply arrest him, book him, and let the courts rule on the arrest. And the military take an oath to the constitution, not the POTUS. They can’t claim innocence if they carry out illegal orders from someone they know is an imposter, so the implication is they might have to do something else. Congress may actually have the least role to play, since they can’t legally impeach someone who isn’t actually POTUS! It’s definitely an interesting subject, in this legal fantasy world we now live in.
George Patton.
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.