Posted on 10/23/2011 5:01:35 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Been noticing something.
Liberals seem to be a bit jumpy about Marco Rubio.
Want to slime him. Almost like they were about Palin...
Interesting.
Thank you. I knew the list was incomplete, but, as it was a side-point, didn't feel it all that pertinent.
-----
The only way to get rid of a sitting President is, as you point out, his resignation, or his impeachment and conviction.
I'm not doubting you at all here, but wouldn't impeachment come after the fact of legal misconduct, or only upon suspicion?
See post #123.
But once the electoral votes have been counted and certified, and he's been sworn in, he is legally the President. And, BTW, the Framers wisely limited the consequences of impeachment to removal from office, being mindful of when Charles I got the axe and wanting the new country to be more civilized than the old.
Of course there are differing views, and you have strangely sided with those who are flat wrong, and with the communists who have been trying for decades to subvert the US Constitution by any and all means, in as many ways as possible.
Both the interpretation of the US Constitution by "original intent", and interpretation by "stare decisis", show that the founders intended that the office of president of the USA never be occupied by anyone with questionable or divided loyalties.
Up-thread you were provided with four SCOTUS cases that intrepreted the Natural Born Citizen clause requirement for president according to "original intent", meaning that "a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the country, of parents who are citizens".
No SCOTUS case has reversed that interpretation, thus subsequent interpretation by "stare decisis" would traditionally support the finding in those four cases, by either method of Constitutional interpretation. The SCOTUS has refused to allow any of the Obama NBC cases before the court because it is painfully obvious that our US Constitution has been usurped, our USA has fallen to an unprecedented communist coup, and even some self-proclaimed "conservatives" are siding with the usurping communists.
This is why the communists went to great lengths to scrub the search indices to those four cases, and to 25 other SCOTUS cases that referenced those, primarily “MINOR v HAPPERSETT”.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
Stare decisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]
Regarding constitutional interpretations, there is concern that over-reliance on the doctrine of stare decisis can be subversive. An erroneous precedent may at first be only slightly inconsistent with the Constitution, and then this error in interpretation can be propagated and increased by further precedents until a result is obtained that is greatly different from the original understanding of the Constitution. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution, and if it causes unconstitutional results then the historical evidence of original understanding can be re-examined. In this opinion, predictable fidelity to the Constitution is more important than fidelity to unconstitutional precedents. See also the living tree doctrine.
Fraud does not set precedent.
Fraud does not set legal precedent.
You missed, perhaps, the most important one. That is the language within the Constitution itself defining who is and who is not eligible to serve as President.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
You can leap every one of these firewalls. If you are not a natural born citizen, you cannot be a legal President. The term "no Person" does not allow wiggle room nor does it accept non-compliance to Constitutional commands such as the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. Just because these "firewalls" failed or ignored their duty doesn't make "no person" disappear from the requirements. It, in essence, is ultimately impenetrable. Not only that, but unlike some of these other firewalls, there is no time constraint on it's implementation.
Absolutely incorrect.
The eligibility requirements CLEARLY prohibits anyone who fails to meet the requirements from being able to serve as President.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Constitution does not allow usurpation to become somehow "legal" just because those who swore an oath to support it failed in their duty. You might try to argue about the definition of terms that are used such as natural born, etc, but "no person" cannot be twisted to mean anything else. No Person.
You stated as well that a natural born citizen is simply someone who aquires their status at birth. What then is a "dual citizen"? The founders specifically placed the natural born citizen requirement for President to guard against the possibility of a dual citizen becoming President. Your "opinion" does not square with this at all.
Ok, you just keep on, I do not care.
I said this is not about me it is about the constitution.
Well, there is nothing in the Constitution to stop the House of Reps from impeaching the President, Vice P, Judges, other Officers for whatever the House wants.
But, as a practical matter, and it is unfortunate, it takes a minimum of felonious conduct to get our reps to even think about booting a President. Usurpation of Constitutional powers should be the standard, not felonies.
I would add that the Framers gave us this power because it was a corrective to the abuse we took as colonists. We could not stroll into the House of Commons and file Articles of impeachment for removal of the King of England. Instead, we were left with the options of doing nothing or revolting.
We HAD the power, as in past tense, to impeach the President to peacefully remove a despot. Unlike other countries, we are not supposed to storm the White House and do nasty things to the President and his czars. The Framers gave us a peaceful means to be rid of scoundrels and oppressors.
There is no question that Hussein does not conduct himself as if he could be booted from power. It is just the opposite; he does what he wishes, craps on our beloved Constitution with absolutely no fear of removal from office.
/rant.
Somehow I don't envision that they would have wanted anyone with possible dual loyalties, as is the case with children born to parents who are not citizens.
Given the definition of some on this board, the twins born the American woman and the Mexican drug lord could grow up in Mexico, return to the U.S. as adults and then run for president. I think you would have a **hard** time selling that to the American voter.
The terrorist and U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki would have been eligible to run for president according to some on this board. Were his parents U.S. citizens? Was his sole citizenship to the U.S.?
I missed nothing.
No judge will remove a candidate from 50 ballots. Nor can a judge or court remove a sitting President. Count on it.
Be thankful.
The Congress has the power to subpoena birth documents and passport records. They refuse to do so.
It just sets my teeth on edge. I am doing all in my power within our local Tea Parties to see that these people are not re-elected.
Only a valid president can be impeached. A usurper would be arrested.
Congress doesn't need to go through impeachment. All they need to do is issue a few subpoenas, but, they **refuse** to do what is just and right.
The person running for president must be a citizen, 35 years of age and lived here 14 years.
anwar al-awlaki was not a citizen as he renounced his citizenship, as well as not meeting any of the other requirements.
The Constitution says he is a sitting "resident". No need for judges. A cop will do. Impeachments apply to legal Presidents, not illegal usurpers. Judges take an oath to support the Constitution and the term "no person" has specified meaning, and consequence.
And you think that will happen in your lifetime. Not a chance.
We have gutless wonders at every lever of govt. No one is able to standup to being called a racist for going after barky. He gets away with everything and the sh_t won't hit the fan until someone on our side tries the same thing.
Why is it you have intentionally left out the words "natural born" from in front of "citizen"?
You do know better.
good grief
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.