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 ...
Ignored does not equal Irrelevant.
The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true. No court in the U.S up to and including the SCOTUS could do anything about it anyway, as it is a political issue and the only body with standing is the U.S Congress and since they fulfilled their Constitutional obligations and certified both the 2008 and 20012 Elections -- then we can assume they believed everything was in order.
Explain to us exactly what it is you think the court system can do and where it gets the authority.
The U.S Constitution enumerates only 1 method of removing a sitting President. That is impeachment. The court cannot compel Congress to impeach the president.
I had a fantasy though, fantasy argument. The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS can remove the President because he administered the oath of Presidency and Obama has verifiably broken that oath by failure to execute the laws of the United States.
> I can’t see how this has been buried by the Left’s shrieking.
The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true. No court in the U.S up to and including the SCOTUS could do anything about it anyway, as it is a political issue and the only body with standing is the U.S Congress and since they fulfilled their Constitutional obligations and certified both the 2008 and 20012 Elections — then we can assume they believed everything was in order.
I don’t buy that explanation. After reviewing Arpo’s evidence I’d say he has proven (to me at least) that he document was a forgery. I think the better explanation is that Soros or some other powers that be probably paid people in high places to ignore the issue. Money can buy anything with this administration including souls.
Unfortunately...it is anti-Birther Obama Supporters like you who helped Obama in 08 and 12 by attacking the Birthers. Not making Obama Eligibility a main issue got us Obama
Unbucking felievable.
The Anti-Birther crowd is led by MITT ROMNEY
who has been behind Obama and Soros since the beginning.
Even if you believe that Obama is eligible, the description of the Father's race on the birth certificate as 'African', the length of time that Obama took to release the form, the fact that Obama sealed his school records and Obama's own admission that he is a dual citizen should be reason enough for there to be valid questions and recognition by the courts that Americans have a duty to their Country to question his credentials.
And the governing body that determines the Presidents elibility is ... wait for it ... wait for it ....
Congress!
Yet again you snooker yourself.
You just keep barking up that tree and I’ll just keep waiting until Obama’s term Constitutionally expired.
> Weren’t you Zotted? And yet here you are, right back at it, defending the usurper’s “bona fides” (or at least, the putative electoral/political result, never mind his failing to publicly satisfy Section 3 of the 20th Amendment) on this forum.
Unbucking felievable.
? Might need to clarify shat you mean.
It's more complex and nuanced than that. The governing authority for verifying the election is the U.S Congress.
We elect the members of the U.S Congress to represent us in that process. The losers of that process have no standing other than the political arena. Which is where the issue has been for years now. So, while the American Citizen certainly has the standing and right to question the validity of Obamas elibility, they cannot do so in a court of law. They can only do so through the governing authority, which the U.S Constitution says it's Congress. Exactly what is the path through the judicial system you think there is? The SCOTUS eventually compelling Congress to re-certify just to be sure? SCOTUS compelling Congress to impeach President Obama? SCOTUS Annulling the election? SCOTUS compelling the President to step down? Where is the annulment clause in the USCON? The only enforcement power of SCOTUS is public opinion and Congressional impetus, and neither have been interested.
That’s my point. The judicial system and Congress have failed the American people. They have us running like rats in a boxed maze. There are legitimate red flags yet the people have no avenue for redress.
IT’S IN THE U.S.CONSTITUTION - the only branch of government with the power to remove a sitting President is Congress. The legislative branch, including SCOTUS, does not have the power.
Do you understand the situation now?
Congress has, in the past, removed sitting Senators for being ineligible, and their names stricken from the Congressional records. So it can be done.
The left doesn’t care as long as their humanist/satanic agenda is advanced and Christian influence is diminished.
Nothing else matters.
We point out their “hypocrisy” and neglect to step back to this core fundamental about the left.
BTW, have I offended you, somehow? The tone of your post to me suggests that I have.
Show me the exact words in the Constitution where the job of determining Presidential eligibility is given to Congress.
Congress is expressly given the resonsibility of determining the eligibility of Congressmen-elect; where are they similarly given the express responsibility of doing the same for the President-elect?
And certifying the electoral votes is not the same thing. That is simply ensuring that they’ve got the true, state-certified result of their electors’ votes. While Congress COULD potentially raise the question of eligibility during that certification, they do not have the means to determine birth facts or to interpret the US Constitution so they would, in the end, have to rely upon the judicial system to figure it out for them if a question was raised.
But because the task is not particularly given to Congress or to any other body, it falls to the courts to decide anyway. What that means is that the inferior courts have WRONGLY claimed it is a “political” question, in order to keep the courts from having to do what the Constitution requires of them.
And THAT is a travesty that needs to be addressed.
Bear in mind that if a person argues that the Constitution especially gives the task to Congress, then the legal interpretation of the Constitution can ONLY be made by Congress, and not even John McCain could have had “standing” in the courts to get a decision by the only Constitutionally-authorized body for ultimately interpreting the US Constitution. Is that REALLY what you mean to argue?
Roger that.
An ineligible person is not president.
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.