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

[El Gato]

Obama is not fit to polish the colonel’s shoes.

With all his foreign connections, including half siblings, he likely could not get a clearance to empty the sanitary tank on AF 1.

[edge919]

The courts have the constitutional power over cases and controversies arising under the constitution. They have reviewed Congressional eligibility before, so there is precedent.

[El Gato]

The vetting is all on the “honor system”. The national parties submit documentation to the states indicating that the candidate is eligible. No checks are done by any state, although candidates who were clearly ineligible (foreign born in one case, and too young in another have been denied ballot access in various states) . No other documentation required. The states and later Congress certify the *votes* but not the candidates.

[mlo]

"The courts have the constitutional power over cases and controversies arising under the constitution."

Not where the Constitution specifically gives a power to the other branches, as the courts themselves have told us.

"They have reviewed Congressional eligibility before, so there is precedent."

Certainly, they could easily hear a case regarding the constitutional eligibility of a candidate and whether a candidate should be on a ballot.

[El Gato]

This would mean he never ran for office , never choose biden as vice- President, never made any appointments.

It doesn't quite work that way. He picked Biden *before* he ran for office, and technically it was the DemonRat party that put Biden up as their VP candidate.

Under the Constitution the election of President and Vice President are wholly separate. Now every state has the same electors for each office, but they cast separate ballots for each office.

If Obama has failed to qualify, then Biden must act as President until a President shall have qualified. Since the only person other than Obama who got any electoral votes for President, was McCain, it would seem that McCain would become President, with Biden remaining as VP. Just the very situation the latter Presidential election amendments were designed to avoid. But following the Constitution, that's where you get.

[El Gato]

The officer's oath does not include anything about obeying orders. Only supporting and defending the Constitution.

I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

It's not been changed since 1868. The enlisted oath was last changed in 1962 to make it more consistent with the officer's oath :

Source: The Oath of Office, A Historical Guide to Moral Leadership, Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2002

[El Gato]

Pelosi signed off on it, it’s done

She signed off on the electoral college vote. That doesn't magicaly overide the Constitutional requirements for holding the office. A person is either eligible, or they are not. A fact. Facts in dispute are determined by the Courts, not the executive or legislative branches.

[Mr Rogers]

No dishonesty, just the facts. Why do you think they quoted the NC court - for fun?

Sorry to rain on your parade of ignorance, but they quoted it because they agreed with it. Precisely analogous, and they went on to quote:

"The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

To repeat, since we've gone over this before and you don't like to listen: "the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government".

Thus, they conclude that a NBS is what is called a NBC in a republic, and "the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government". The legal definition of NBS thus reveals what the Founders considered the meaning of NBC to be - and that INCLUDES those with TWO alien parents.

[El Gato]

Doesn’t change the facts. It was Congress’s job and they made their decision.

The whole Congress/electoral vote thing is about certifying the votes, not the eligibility of the candidates.

[mlo]

The Constitution gives Congress the power to object to and reject votes. It’s not just a counting process. If Congress believed that electoral votes were cast for an ineligible candidate they have the power not to count those votes.

[OneWingedShark]

You do realize this bolsters my analysis of authority in the military and the conclusion that it comes, ultimately, from the Constitution.
(You’ll probably have fun at the responses following post #119, particularly those of the author of Post #170.)

[El Gato]

There is a process laid out. It was followed. It doesn't include a requirement to check birth certificates. That's just the way it is.

But there is a requirement to be eligible. The fact that no one checked, doesn't change the requirement, nor does it make an ineligible person able to hold the office.

[El Gato]

There is a process laid out. It was followed. It doesn't include a requirement to check birth certificates. That's just the way it is.

But there is a requirement to be eligible. The fact that no one checked, doesn't change the requirement, nor does it make an ineligible person able to hold the office.

[Raycpa]

The courts have the constitutional power over cases and controversies arising under the constitution

And congress can remove ever Supreme Court Justice if they tried to remove the president even if they were given that power (they weren't)

[Beckwith]

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

Even when it's against the letter of the law to do so?

I'd hate to have you do my books.

[Raycpa]

I am a states rights kind of guy. I don’t see a problem that a state places restrictions on state property.

[Jim Noble]

Facts in dispute are determined by the Courts, not the executive or legislative branches.

I'm sorry, but there are many exceptions, mostly of a political nature, that prove you wrong.

Just two: The power of impeachment (by the House, I mean), and the power of each House make its own rules.

An impeached official cannot block his Senate trial by appealing facts to the courts. The courts cannot overturn a Senate rule.

No court would even hear motions in either such case, and there are many more.

The choice of the President by the Electoral College is a political question par excellence - and the Constitution's provisions for same are dripping with politics.

And for good reason, since "politics" is another name for the way the sovereign in this country exercises its power.

The person who calls himself "Obama" has been judged eligible three times, by all three competent authorities. After its reckless overreach in Bush v. Gore, there is no possibility of the USSC or inferior courts wading back into the swamp of Presidential elections.

And they should not, because the Constitution grants them no such power.

I've had this argument here many times - we need to put the courts back into the box which the Constitution designed for them. Nullifying a Presidential election by overruling a) the voters, b) the Electoral College, and c) the special Joint Session of Congress would be a breathtaking exercise of power, greater even than the outrageous Roe v. Wade, and FReepers who would grant this much power to the courts are barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

[Sudetenland]

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.

Actually, you are wrong. If there are legal consequences to your actions, if they violate the law, then you don’t have a “right,” to do them, you only have the ability to do them. By your definition, you would have the “right” to publish child pornography, you just have to be willing to suffer the consequences. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? Can you publish child pornography? Can you incite to riot?

Under our system of government, no right is an absolute. Under our system of government, as laid out in the Constitution, what the court says is the law.

Since the Constitution provides for the establishment of such courts as Congress deems necessary and provides the courts with such authority as Congress deems necessary, how a court rules is the state of law.

”Article III, Section 2. 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 . . .”

Laws against slander and libel (as well as the other cases I cited above) and other laws such as Congress has passed and the President has signed into law are "Laws of the United States."

The fact is, you have no “absolute rights.” Your rights only extend up to the point that they impinge on the rights of another citizen.

You may well argue that you should be able to perform any act, even those proscribed by law such as child pornography, but those restrictions are old and well established and in the real world, not likely to be reversed because they address situations in which your “right” endangers the well being of another citizen. Though I have not researched them, I suspect that they predate the Constitution in common law and were accepted even by our Founding Fathers.

Your opinion of precedent is irrelevant, once a court has ruled, that IS the state of the law. Precedent exists to prevent the endless re-litigation of similar cases in law. Court rulings exist to add specificity to broadly written laws and to address previously unaddressed issues, or changing conditions within society, such as new technology. No one is more opposed to judicial activism or law by judicial fiat than I, but this is not making law, it is interpreting existing laws (hopefully in accordance with the original intent of the framers).

Precedent exists to provide guidance to subsequent cases. That state of law exists unless and until the court subsequently rules differently, in which case the state of the law is changed. You may argue against Marbury vs. Madison, as I often have, but you will never see it reversed. It is as well established in law as the words of the Constitution. You most probably will never see Wickard vs. Filburn overturned and it is the most egregious expansion of federal jurisdiction made in the last century, because it is established in law and the court has refused to reconsider it. [You talk about a bad decision; Wickard stands as one of the worst in our nation’s history and it should be reversed, but I doubt you will ever see it.]

”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.

Don’t see that this “turns my argument back against me.” All you have done is cite cases that have yet to have been litigated. My example cites specific Supreme Court rulings which refers to the specific topic of 2nd Amendment protections. Heller recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” From McDonald vs. Chicago

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions of the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at _-_ (slip op., at 54-55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

You state:

” 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?)”

But from the above decision, it is clear that “incorporation” as defined in federal case law concerning the Fourteenth Amendment means that federal law supercedes local laws (including state laws and constitutions) when dealing with constitutionally protected rights, otherwise a state constitution could outlaw firearm ownership entirely and you would have no recourse. Are you saying that if your states constitution outlawed gun ownership that you would lose your Second Amendment protections? Chicago might agree, but the Supremes don’t (at least a narrow majority don’t, thank God).

Whether you find it "scary" or not, that is the state of law.

So lets get your arguments straight. You are arguing that want to get rid of the President, the Speaker, all laws passed since Obama was elected. Overthrow the results of a democratically executed election and thus the will of the people, get rid of the supreme court bench, roll back all of the decisions concerning the constitutionally protected rights since the beginning of the nation.

You sound far more scary than anything the Supreme Court has done; scary and dangerous.

Good luck with those windmills, Don.

[omegadawn]

What Congress said is CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN. in THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790 they included children of citizens born overseas. In the term. of 1790 the wording “that may be “ means INCLUDING. So to better understand the phrase in our current useage of language the statment should be read as CHILDREN OF CITIZENS(INCLUDING THOSE BORN OVERSEAS) SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN. This has been been upheld by a number of Supreme Court cases.(for example :Minor vs. Happensett Children who parents are U.S. citizens are Natural Born)

[omegadawn]

obama’s “run” for office began almost two years before he was chosen to represent the democratic party. He also selected biden as his running mate before he was confirmed as the democratic candidate . You are partically correct . prior to the the 20th centuary , vice presidents were selected by the electorial college, and were separate from the office of the President. While the electorial college votes for the vice-president ,they do not in effect select him as a candidate. or in simple terms currently the President and the vice-president is a packgage deal. The electorial college has no voice in the selection of the vice-president, this is left up to the person running for the office of the President. obama chose biden when he was running for the office of the president , as obama was and still is ineligible to run for office and to chose a vice-president, both should be removed from office.