MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO!

YouTube ^ | September 03, 2010 | ppsimmons

[RatsDawg]

BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube

[OneWingedShark]

>WHY WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE REMOVED?

Is an excellent question; I have not hears an answer.

[Raycpa]

I don’t see a conflict when the state puts restrictions on access to state property and my individual right to bare arms.

[Raycpa]

I don’t see a conflict when the state puts restrictions on access to state property and my individual right to bear arms.

[Raycpa]

Perhaps the certification requirements for different states requiring different wording and they are expected to contain certain language that differs from state to state.

[OneWingedShark]

>I don’t see a conflict when the state puts restrictions on access to state property and my individual right to bear arms.

To which question[s] presented are you attributing your answer? Also note that I requested SPECIFIC EXPLANATIONS to such presented answers; one sentence does not suffice.

[little jeremiah]

Bravo - great comments on this thread you’ve made. It’s crystal clear for anyone who wants to see.

[Mr. Wright]

We can all wait for the full, and in-depth, report from the Lame Stream Media. I am sure they will be all over this statement by the judge. They will press hard on Gibbs to react. They will ask Obama about the judges quote at the next Press Conference. They will cover, gavel to gavel, the trail of the Officer in the U.S. Army in October.
NOT!!!!!!!

[OneWingedShark]

Thank you; I try to put thought and reasoning into my arguments. (Sometimes I’m less successful than others though.)

[null and void]

Name the state that forbids mentioning that the presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements to hold that office, please?

[justiceseeker93]

The phrase "embarrass" is a term of art by legal entities where they acknowledge the separation between co-equal jurisdictions.

I have read hundreds of federal court opinions and have never seen the word "embarrass" used in this manner. In the judge's opinion, the noun "embarrassment" was used to refer not to Congress, not to any Court, but to Obama himself. The potential embarrassment was personal, not institutional.

Specifically, it means, in this case, a re-iteration that the judicial branch has no right or authority to delve into another entities business.

I can give you hundereds of Supreme Court (and lower federal court) cases where the actions of private corporations or government agencies or officials were delved into, so this statement is nonsense in general.

But I'll concede that military courts are different in many ways, notably harsher in general against criminal defendants.

...specifically political questions on the Presidents [sic] legitimacy which are reserved exclusively to Congress.

Questions on the President's ligitimacy, i.e., the determination as who whether he qualifies for the office, are constitutional questions implicating the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of Article II. They are not "political" questions in the legal sense of the term.

Article III, Section 2 states in pertinent part that "[t]he judicial Power [of the federal courts] shall extend to all cases ... arising under this Constitution..." Plus, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution nor in federal law supporting your contention that "political questions on the Presidents legitimacy ... are reserved exclusively to Congress." That's because the Founding Fathers and later Congresses never contemplated a situation such as this one, where a man might somehow attain the presidency without the integrity to document, if challenged, that he was a Natural Born Citizen.

[Sudetenland]

Pelosi signed off on it, it’s done. That’s the way it works under our system. She’s Speaker of the House of Representatives and has that responsibility. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it so.

[Mr Rogers]

Have you read the judge’s opinion? Neither have I.

A guy who was there, asked about the ‘embarrass’ comment, wrote: “The judge did not say it would embarrass the President. What she did say was that it is not the duty of one of the branches of Government to use their power to embarrass the other branches of government. It’s not a quote, I’m just paraphrasing.”

I’ll be curious to see the wording used in the Judge’s opinion, if it gets published.

As for Obama not being looked at for eligibility, please remember that:

A) if Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii, he committed fraud. If he was not born inside the US, then he needs to be removed immediately. And, of course, every opponent he faced knew this. Yet during the 2 years he ran, no one came up with any evidence nor have they to this date.

B) if he was born in the USA, he IS a natural born citizen. His opponents agree, all 50 states agree, Congress agrees, the courts agree - there can be no rational doubt on this. Every member of Congress had a chance to object to his delegates’ votes, and not one did. The Supreme Court had the chance to rule contrary, and they declined the case. The voters knew & accepted him. Before he ran, that was accepted law.

And it is not the role of a military court to determine the eligibility of someone for the Presidency. That is the role of the People, and I don’t have to like what the People decided.

[rodguy911]

This video is similar to almost everything we delve into. It winds up adding to the endeavor and only asks even more questions than before.

Never do we get to any source materials or any judge, politician, or other that has the guts to even look into the situation.

Pathetic excuse for justice.

[Sudetenland]

The tradition of civilian control of the military is long and well established. The Office of President of the United States is a civilian office, not a military rank. The Founding Fathers worked hard to ensure that the military would be under civilian control because they didn't want to see a system like those in Europe.

Try reading this, Defense.gov

and this The President as Commander in Chief This section specifically: The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer.

[mlo]

None were submitted in writing.

[rodguy911]

If this was Nixon they would already have the birth certificate in triplicate....

Agreed.

That is however if you believe that there even exists any written proof anywhere in the world of who this clown is. I don't.

His handlers have covered his ass waaay too good to leave anything incriminating at all around that can expose who this Manchurian really is,IMHO.

I think the only proof we will ever get is to accidentally interview the right person at the right time and possibly get the truth.

That could happen. The minute we do that person's life will be in jeopardy, IMHO. We are up against a regime that is well financed, has unlimited capability to do almost anything they need to do and is completely fearless when it comes to destroying anything we respect such as the law,love of country,the economy, you name it.

[mlo]

"If this was Nixon, they would already have the birth certificate in triplicate, and every other shred of paper generated during his lifetime, and his family members back to ten years before they entered this nation."

Not if it had nothing to do with the case, they wouldn't. But you are free to make as many copies as you like.

[Sudetenland]

I think by now, it's pointless to argue with these clowns. They will never accept any answer except what they have already concluded. The courts have rejected every claim in this arena, Congress, as represented by the duly elected Speaker of the House, has signed off on his presidency and his qualifications to be president; case closed . . . except for the die hard birthers.

You can't reason with the unreasonable.

[OneWingedShark]

>The tradition of civilian control of the military is long and well established.

I agree that there is such a tradition. However you have NOT pointed to a portion of the Constitution wherein it explicitly says the President must be a civilian... in fact, such a provision would CONSTITUTIONALLY disqualify and active duty armed force member... and PROBABLY *ALL* members of the reserve and National Guards. {If I recall correctly George Washington would have been disqualified from becoming the first President of the Constitutional United States.}

>The Office of President of the United States is a civilian office, not a military rank.

Correct, but then the POSITION of Commander-in-Chief is also such an office and NOT [strictly speaking] a military rank.

>The Founding Fathers worked hard to ensure that the military would be under civilian control because they didn’t want to see a system like those in Europe.

The Founding Fathers also worked hard to craft a system which RESPECTED individuals; witness the Fourth Amendment. It’s also very probable that they would be much more in favor of a military-rule, though constrained by the Constitution, than having a foreigner in the highest executive office... otherwise why would they write in the Natural Born Citizen requirement (AND grandfather themselves in)?

[OneWingedShark]

I can’t use that; it’s not an original document.
{Try taking a picture of your birth certificate, Drivers License, etc as proof of who you are for your next application for something from the government... like renewing the driver’s license.}