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]

>No, it states that a sitting president is eligible so long as congress or the voters take no action. There is no other authority that can intervene but congress.

And here you assume that someone occupying the Office of the President of the United States of America, having failed to qualify constitutionally, cannot be legitimately removed but by Congress!?

Nay! But having failed to qualify the lack of assuaging the concerns of the people by way of properly assuring and verifying that he is indeed able to hold office, the Legislature and Judiciary have proven to be nothing more than miscreants who aim to exercise authority without accountability.

[Sudetenland]

That's the way our system works. Pelosi, like her or not, is the duly elected representative of her district, and by election of the majority of the members of the House, Speaker. It falls to her to sign off and she did. Unless you are suggesting that you are ready to scrap the Constitution and our government, the point is moot.

By approving the vote of the electoral college, not only Pelosi, but the entire House confirmed his election and by law and by Constitution he is the President of the United States.

[Raycpa]

I am all ears. Who can remove the president besides congress? Show me.

[rolling_stone]

Baloney

[edge919]

You’re making up the last part about parents in amity.

[OneWingedShark]

I am all ears. Who can remove the president besides congress? Show me.

Well, there's the person himself: Nixon resigned.
There's God, honestly who's going to tell Him that He can't?
There's also John Wilkes Booth.

But, you've not answered my question: is a "sitting president" who fails to constitutionally qualify really the president?
If your answer is yes, then what is to stop someone from killing a President and replacing him with a body-double (surgically altered perhaps)... and presenting this double as the real President? By your theory he could not be removed by office except by the Congressional impeachment (even if it was fully disclosed that he was not the president whom was elected), right?
Hell, that sounds like the plot of a knights/kings/politics/bandits novel set in times where the King was considered the [embodiment of the] Law... not like a Constitutionally governed system where, supposedly, the Law is the King and *EVERYONE* is a subject thereof.

[Sudetenland]

Until proven otherwise, Obama is a natural born citizen. He has provided sufficient proof of his birth to satisfy the House of Representatives and the State of Illinois.

You can your fellow birthers can grouse and whine and shout and jump up and down all you want, but the fact remains that according to the Constitution he is the legitimate President of the United States.

As to the civilian/military question; the President holds no military rank, is not enlisted in the military, is paid as a civilian for his service as President and receives no compensation from the military, is not subject to any Courts Martial, nor any military authority.

You yourself wrote,

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

Which confirms what I have been saying, he is not a member of the military, he is a civilian.

Since you didn't bother to read the reference, here is the cogent portion:

"No part of his compensation is paid from sums appropriated for the military or naval forces; and it is equally clear under the Constitution that the President’s duties as Commander in Chief represent only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter’s office is a civil office. [Article II, section 1 of the Constitution ... .] The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline. On the contrary, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that ‘The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ . . . The last two War Presidents, President Wilson and President Roosevelt, both clearly recognized the civilian nature of the President’s position as Commander in Chief. President Roosevelt, in his Navy Day Campaign speech at Shibe Park, Philadelphia, on October 27, 1944, pronounced this principle as follows:–‘It was due to no accident and no oversight that the framers of our Constitution put the command of our armed forces under civilian authority. It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to appoint the Secretaries of War and Navy and the Chiefs of Staff.’ It is also to be noted that the Secretary of War, who is the regularly constituted organ of the President for the administration of the military establishment of the Nation, has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be merely a civilian officer, not in military service. (United States v. Burns, 79 U.S. 246 (1871)). On the general principle of civilian supremacy over the military, by virtue of the Constitution, it has recently been said: ‘The supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages.’ Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 325 (1945).”199

As the Secretary of War (now the Secretary of Defense) is subordinate to the Commander in Chief, and directly underneath him in the Chain of Command, then that places the Commander in Chief as also a civilian officer, not in military service.

There is no argument by which you can place the President as a military officer rather than a civilian officer. By any definition of a "military man" he fails. He is the civilian head of the military, as intended and designed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Oh, and by the way, Washington had resigned his commission in 1783, four years prior to being elected as President, so he would not have been ineligible under your example.

[Sudetenland]

See my post #167. If you still can’t grasp it, then you are being deliberately obtuse or intellectually dishonest. The President in no way meets the definition of being a “military man.”

[OneWingedShark]

>By approving the vote of the electoral college, not only Pelosi, but the entire House confirmed his election and by law and by Constitution he is the President of the United States.

Let’s change things around a bit and say that it wasn’t nationality that was the disqualifying factor but age; say one of the accelerated aging diseases (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria or something) was the cause and let’s further say that it was cured by some experimental-drug/treatment or even miracle (so that they wouldn’t have any of the attendant health-complications). Let’s say that their age was never checked because they were *obviously* old enough to be President.

Assume that after a year or so of governance the truth came out and the President is revealed to be only, say, 20 years old.
Is that person the President of the United States of America?

I say ‘no’ because the Constitution places a restriction on the possible age of the person in order to qualify to be President... and *NOTHING* Congress can do can change the actual age of that boy. So, on what basis are you going to claim that the second qualification (that of birth) can be negated through any action or inaction of Congress?

[Sudetenland]

Re #119, It would be illegal to carry in that case. None of our rights is an absolute right. Freedom of speech is limited, and the Supreme court has ruled that the there are limits to the 2nd Amendment.

In their last ruling, they upheld the ban on carrying a firearm in court buildings and at schools. Thus even though your state Constitution says otherwise, the Supremes have already granted power to localities to set those specific standards. Note that they did not uphold the ban for cities, only for those specific exceptions.

[OneWingedShark]

>That’s the way our system works. Pelosi, like her or not, is the duly elected representative of her district, and by election of the majority of the members of the House, Speaker. It falls to her to sign off and she did. Unless you are suggesting that you are ready to scrap the Constitution and our government, the point is moot.
>
>By approving the vote of the electoral college, not only Pelosi, but the entire House confirmed his election and by law and by Constitution he is the President of the United States.

Nope, that’s not what the Constitution says; in fact there are provisions for him “having failed to qualify” in the very Constitution; at very best it makes Nancy et al Lying Oathbreakers [for thy swore an oath to uphold the Constitution]... at worst it means that they are all complicit in TREASON (what could be of more aid to the enemies of America than destroying the legitimacy/integrity of one branch of its government). In fact the legal definition of “conspiracy” would suggest that, should such information come out that Obama *is* ineligible then EVERY congressman who participated in the certification of said vote is guilty of conspiracy (and furthermore it would also include the supreme court who had a hand in the election with the “swearing in”).

IOW, the real shit hitting the fan won’t be taking Obama out of office... it’ll be that the heads of all three branches of government ARE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY AND/OR TREASON. Think about that for a bit, it would prove all the “the government’s involved in conspiracies” crowd correct... this in turn SHOULD create an innate distrust of government “because-I-said-so” authority in the people for [hopefully] generations — the lack of questioning on authority and accountability exercised by our leaders would INSTANTLY disappear, rendering a *LOT* of their power inert. (Both parties WANT to be able to exercise power unquestioned.)

[Mr Rogers]

No, I'm not. Read WKA:

"Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

That wasn't written as a historical review, but to demonstrate the meaning of natural born citizen by examining the "precisely analogous", well established and known term (in the 1780s) 'natural born subject'.

[edge919]

You’re proving me right. What you quoted is about natural born subjects, not natural born citizens. Note: We don’t have Kings in the United States (except for Rodney or Martin Luther). It’s time to quit spreading lies.

[Mr Rogers]

That is why they called it “precisely analogous”, only saving the change from subject to citizen. In a republic, a natural born subject is called a natural born citizen. So if you want to know the meaning the Founders assumed in the latter, see what was meant by the former.

[mlo]

"Last time I checked we had three branches of government for checks and balances..the Supremes are on deck...They will have to answer the question of what is an NBC sooner or later."

There are three branches, sure. But their roles are defined. They don't all weigh in on every issue. The Constitution is very clear about how the President is elected and it's not up to the court. Which is why they are not on deck and won't be. There is no case before the Supreme Court.

[mlo]

"I can’t use that; it’s not an original document."

What on earth are you talking about? He's not submitting it to YOU for some official purpose. He's released it for the public.

[edge919]

Sorry to rain on your dishonesty parade, but the ‘precisely analogous’ phrase was from a state Supreme Court decision ... one that also noted that said “all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State,” which is not the same as you were saying earlier about ‘parents in amity’ ... and the citation also says nothing about natural born citizens OR natural born subjects ... and ‘analogous’ as you’ve been told mean times, does not mean ‘exactly the same.’ Further, nowhere in the WKA decision does it use this citation to say that NBS = NBC. You are connecting dots they did NOT connect.

[El Gato]

It would be “embarrassing” for the POTUS to be compeled by a mere LTC to have to submit evidence to a military court.

The de facto President would not need to submit anything. The court can get the requested documentation directly from the State of Hawaii, and the various other custodians of the information.

Besides who would trust any documents submitted by or through The Won.

[OneWingedShark]

>Re #119, It would be illegal to carry in that case. None of our rights is an absolute right. Freedom of speech is limited, and the Supreme court has ruled that the there are limits to the 2nd Amendment.

So then you do not have the absolute right to print whatever you want, because it could be libel? Incorrect! You DO have that right, regardless of what some court says that the law says. [The same goes for slander and “hate speech.”] Though this does not mean that you should not be free from the consequences of exercising that right for such ill-willed purposes.

“Precedent” is little more than the judicial equivalent of the children’s game “telephone.” The thing that makes the game a game is that it is a practical observation of the nature of both our language and our own nature to be imperfect carriers of some message... the game’s fun comes from observing the distortions of the message as it continues to degrade during the loop... this is the same thing that makes precedent so evil, it lifts above the law what people have said about the law.

I will now turn your own argument back upon you:
The supreme court has ruled, in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, that when a government operates a “limited public forum,” it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses. Yet there are numerous federally-funded universities which, as we speak, restrict free-speech (based on its viewpoint) by their school policies. {It’s so common that some Universities, like mine, have “free-speech zones” which relax those restrictions in certain geographical places.} (If a university being funded by the government is NOT a “limited public forum,” then what is it?)

Furthermore, it is federal law that “two or more persons conspir[ing] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, [...] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;” is punishable (in certain qualified circumstances) by death... that is: it is potentially a CAPITAL CRIME for some group of people to get together and plan to oppress a “right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution!” even if that group is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. {SEE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html }

Remember it is the judiciary’s job to “faithfully execute the law” not to change its meaning.

>In their last ruling, they upheld the ban on carrying a firearm in court buildings and at schools.

See the above; I would love to have seen the Supreme Court brought up on those charges for Keelo v. New London wherein they completely gutted both the “for public use” and the “just compensation” clauses of the 5th Amendment.
ALL schools & courthouses, or just Federal schools & courthouses? There is a difference.
Furthermore, my courthouse example was SPECIFICALLY restricted to the state, its counties, and its Constitution: that the Federal Government says that it’s possible for some restriction to be placed on something does NOT invalidate the state’s own Constitution’s prohibition from restricting it? (Or can you give me a reason why it does or should?)

>Thus even though your state Constitution says otherwise, the Supremes have already granted power to localities to set those specific standards.

So, by this argument the Supreme Court could invalidate any state government, law, or regulation regardless of whether or not the issue at hand is under the federal court’s purview? That’s a friggen scary thought man.

My State Constitution also has this in it:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Under your theory the Supreme Court could invalidate this because “some religiously-motivated political speech is deemed to be hurtful, harmful, and hateful and thus may be restricted” and then my State could pass a law banning the ability to vote [Citizen’s right of suffrage] from any person who publicly declared that abortion is murder! {Regardless of the State’s own Constitution prohibiting any such law.}

>Note that they did not uphold the ban for cities, only for those specific exceptions.

Please read the above.

[OneWingedShark]

>>”I can’t use that; it’s not an original document.”
>
>What on earth are you talking about? He’s not submitting it to YOU for some official purpose. He’s released it for the public.

Then why are you presenting it for the official purpose of establishing his eligibility?