Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
Notice of Commission of (i) a Felony Cognizable by a Court of the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 4 - Misprision of Felony and (ii) Treason against the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 2382 - Misprision of Treason and Motion to Seal Document
COMES NOW Douglas Vogt: (i) pursuant to the obligations placed upon him by 18 U.S.C. 4 and 2382, upon both his Public and Sealed Affidavits attached hereto, and gives the requisite notice of the commission of felonies and/or treason by the following described persons cognizable by a Court of the United States and (ii) pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), moves the Court for an order sealing his attached envelope containing his Sealed Affidavit marked with the case caption and the phrase "FILED UNDER SEAL", and states as follows:
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”
The judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, which includes the requirements specified in Article II. There is nothing specifying Article II requirements, or any other matter of law, are to be adjudicated by the Legislative Branch.
Don’t be ridiculous.
I would not disagree with that. But Congress is still the fail safe.
People are getting confused on Congresses responsibility on election certification. It’s real simple. If congress determined that Obama was eligible, they would merely say nothing and certify the election. Had they found him ineligible (AND HAD THE ***POLITICAL*** votes to do so), they would declare him ineligible and resolve the matter as the Constitution clearly points out.
Where specifically does the Constitution say Congress determines eligibility?
Read what was written. I didn’t say SCOTUS. I wrote, “Supreme Courts have removed an Executive who fails Constitutional muster.”
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html
Did you read 3 USC Sec 15, where it says that Congress cannot reject any electoral votes that are properly certified by a State?
How the heck can Congress determine Presidential eligibility in a process where they simply HAVE TO ACCEPT whatever votes are properly certified BY THE STATES?
You haven’t refuted them, only disputed them.
Congress is never given the authority to declare a President ineligible. Their authority in the electoral vote certification is merely in deciding whether each State submitted a proper certification of their electors. That’s all. If the State submitted proper certification THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT those electoral votes. They have no discretion to do anything BUT accept those electoral votes. The statute is clear.
Show me something that changes that fact, or you and everybody else here has to know that you’re spouting BS.
“People are getting confused on Congresses responsibility on election certification. It’s real simple. If congress determined that Obama was eligible, they would merely say nothing and certify the election. Had they found him ineligible (AND HAD THE ***POLITICAL*** votes to do so), they would declare him ineligible and resolve the matter as the Constitution clearly points out.”
You’ve identified the problem precisely: “AND HAD THE ***POLITICAL*** votes to do so”.
Article II - 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.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, obviously an immutable requirement was intended by the “natural born citizen” portion of the clause, not a indeterminate requirement subject to the whim of whichever faction holds sway at any given time.
bwahahahahahaha ...
You’re not reading it correctly and misunderstanding the thought process. Probably by design as your reasoning has been a tortured.
SCOTUS does not rule on the constitutionality of enumerations in the constitution. It’s dual redundant. The Constitution instantiates SCOTUS.
SCOTUS reviews legistlated laws and laws *arising* from the Constitution. So stop telling us that SCOTUS rules on Constitutional Enumerations ... it doesn’t. IT rules on laws enacted and ensures they conform to the Constitution.
It's not a real problem constitutionally, it is a problem for people who want Obama thrown out though. This is why I say the Birther movement, after having a brief moment in the sun, evaporated in that moment because people followed the breadcrumbs and realized it's a political process.
Article II - No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ......
USCON, Article 1 section 8 4th clause: [Congress responisiblity]
To establish an [SIC] uniform Rule of Naturalization ....
So, another dead end for SCOTUS, back to Congress and the political process.
You say, "SCOTUS reviews legistlated laws and laws *arising* from the Constitution."
Article III clearly states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
A question regarding a person's eligibility is certainly a case in Law arising under the Constitution. Article II requires no enabling legislation.
You are so full of BS it isn’t even funny. Read Article III, Section 2 again:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
It lists 3 things. The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and Equity, arising under
1) this Constitution,
2) the Laws of the United States, and
3) Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
Don’t go trying to claim that #1 and #3 aren’t right there in the text of the Constitution, because they are right there for anybody (who is willing to look...) to see.
In addition to that they also have jurisdiction in “controversies between two or more States, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States. (Obama is believed to be a citizen of Hawaii or maybe Connecticut, and he has been challenged by people of all different States)....
In addition to that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party... In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Don’t give us baloney. This stuff is right there in the Constitution for all to see.
You dispute but do not refute.
What does establishing a uniform rule of naturalization have to do with determining Presidential eligibility? Are you saying Obama is an ILLEGAL alien? If naturalization applies to him at all, then he DOESN’T qualify as being a natural born citizen.
You are losing it.
Each state is different. But in the states where the question has been litigated the Courts have ruled that SoS have no responsibility to determine eligibility.
Were the incriminating evidence presented, he still would not be impeached.
You keep getting there right before I do. lol.
I’m waiting for him/her to say that the First Amendment is all a matter of the political process. If one of Obama’s “czars” decides to jail any person who uses speech the regime doesn’t like, the people can’t do anything about it because SCOTUS only rules on whether laws are Constitutional. That’s why Obama has to have so many “czars” who are totally outside the political process - so SCOTUS can’t do a dang thing to protect the Constitution or us, since the Constitution is being trampled by people outside the political process.
Come to think of it, he/she may just have revealed the whole mindset and legal tactic of this thug regime from Hell. Maybe we should keep him/her talking...
Well I would say the same of you, spouting BS, but one has to have at least some understanding to spout BS, and you clearly don't understand at all.
Try this hypothetical:
Some future Conservative President decides that ultra-liberal SCOTUS Justice James Branch Cabell is senile and not in control of his faculties.
What is the method of removal and replacement of Justice Cabell? What if the U.S House is ultra-liberal too and decides that keeping Justice Cabell seated is in their best interests ... for whatever reason and refuses to impeach Justice Cabell?
Furthermore, what if SCOTUS Justice Henry. L. Mencken decides that Justice Cabell is being unfairly put upon and shouldn't be impeached. Does he have standing to challenge Congresses authority to impeach? What if the Whole SCOTUS decided that it was politically unfair to Impeach Justice Cabell?
Where does the remedy exist for such a situation?
In the complaint Vogt says<
“10 The tenth point of forgery is the inconsistent line spacing on the COLB which a manual typewriter would not do”
All the manual typewriters I’ve used had a variable line spacing mechanism, either a lever or a button that allowed you to set the line spacing just about anyway you wanted. It was a feature made specifically for filling out forms.
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.