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’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.

I'm not *partially* correct, I'm Constitutional correct.

The electoral college doesn't currently select the Presidential candidate either. Instead the electors are selected based on the candidate they support or pledge to vote for. That was informally true from the beginning, but under state laws it is now formally true. The electors are usually not even on the ballot by name. (Although I seem to remember their names being on the ballot in my earliest Presidential elections, 1972 and '76. Of course my state only had 5 electors, so that was not too onerous. Be kind of a bear in California, Texas or New York.

Vice President's are elected by the Electoral college. In a separate vote on separate ballots. It's under state laws that the electors are tied to a "ticket", via common electors.

The Constitution doesn't say who may run for the office, it says who is or is not eligible for the office.

The Constitution trumps current laws and practices.

While far from ideal, I can live with Biden acting as President, since that is what my reading of the Constitution says should be the case. It is *acting as*, he would not become President. He would act until a President qualified.

The Constitution doesn't even mention political parties. They have no Constitutional weight, yet they are the ones who select the candidates. Not the electoral college.

I think we should go back to the old way. Where the electors were not faceless people, often without their names even on the ballot, but were either selected by the legislature or by vote of the people, without direct regard for a candidate they might vote for. A vote for them, not for some person running for office. Sure, there would be smokey backroom deals, as if there aren't in the parties anyway. But I think a little tweaking could result in process more in keeping with the Constitution and the Presidential election amendments to it.

The current system reeks of too much democracy. Something the founders knew was dangerous.

[El Gato]

That wasn't written as a historical review, but to demonstrate the meaning of natural born citizen

Actually it was historical review, and as far as the decision in WKA goes, it is dicta. The case did not turn on whether WKA was a natural born citizen, but rather whether he was a citizen at all. The Court ruled that he was, not under English common law, but under the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

[El Gato]

he Constitution gives Congress the power to object to and reject votes.If Congress believed that electoral votes were cast for an ineligible candidate they have the power not to count those votes.

You can of course point to the section of the Constitution which does this. The thrust of the Congressional power is regarding counting votes, not accepting or rejecting canidates. The main section would be amendment XII, which replaced the process specified in the original Constitution. There was a bit more tweaking by amendment XX. But I can't find anything requiring or allowing Congress to do any more than certify the votes, or not as the case may be. The law talks to improperly cast votes and more than one "return" from a given state. It does not speak to eligibility of the candidate.

Since the law does not specify what the grounds for objection to a vote might be, it's possible that a vote could be said to have been improperly cast because it was cast for because of the ineligibility of the person it was cast for, I'm not aware of that ever happening.

[OneWingedShark]

>Under our system of government, as laid out in the Constitution, what the court says is the law.

No, under our Constitution what the LEGISLATURE says is law.

>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.

In that case the defense of one’s life does NOT justify homicide; that is itself in contradiction with HUNDREDS of years of legal thought.

>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,

That is phrased horribly. I think your intended meaning is: “Via the 14th Amendment’s incorporation, the federal CONSTITUTION supersedes any State Constitution [and thusly state law] *only* in cases where such law is CONTRARY to such right acknowledged by the Federal Constitution” Am I correct that this is what you were trying to say? {It’s very different from what you actually said.}

>otherwise a state constitution could outlaw firearm ownership entirely and you would have no recourse.

Incorrect. While the 1st Amendment specifically binds federal government, the 2nd binds ALL levels of government in that it is written in the passive voice; the passive voice thereof means that the *action* of infringing is the subject of the sentence and that the actor is [for intents and purposes] irrelevant.

>Are you saying that if your states constitution outlawed gun ownership that you would lose your Second Amendment protections?

Already answered above.
However, my State’s Constitution outlaws ANY state/county/municipality law “abridging the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms for defense and security.” IOW, it both reaffirms the 2nd amendment AND expands the official acknowledgment [of the right to keep and bear arms] to explicitly include the Citizen’s right to defense. Furthermore, it specifically forbids any county or municipality from restricting “in any way” someone’s right to keep and bear arm. (Like by charging someone with “disorderly conduct” or “brandishing” because they were openly-carrying.)

>Chicago might agree, but the Supremes don’t (at least a narrow majority don’t, thank God).

Let me put it this way, if Chicago were a city in New Mexico it would be in violation of 100% of the sentences contained in Art II, Sec 6; PLUS the generally affirmed rights acknowledged in Sec II, Art 4; PLUS Amendment 2 of the United States Constitution; PLUS US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241. {The last two items are constant.}

I don’t know about you, but that seems like an awful lot of legal shit could come raining down on them if that were the case.
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.

1 — Why should things passed by congress and signed into law by someone who is not (and constitutionally CANNOT be) the President should still be legally binding; why?
2 — I don’t merely wish to be rid of Obama, I wish to be rid of the traitors in all branches of government who undermine or contradict the Constitution of the United States.
3 — If there is some conspiracy, and it sure looks like there is one (of SOME sort) then I also wish that *ALL* those involved in the treason of invalidating the CONSTITUTIONAL validity and/or destroying the CONSTITUTIONAL integrity of one or more branches of the government to be tried for treason and publicly hung if found guilty.

>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.

Why not? They ALL seem to be quite complicit in ignoring the purpose of the Constitution: as Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

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

I see how you, a Loyalist, would find someone who puts their allegiance in the Constitution rather than the “established government, political party, or sovereign” when that government/political-party has determined in it heart to go against that Constitution to be “scary and dangerous.” {see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2572319/posts }

In fact, I think I shall take it as a great complement; so, thank you.

[verity]

Invited? lol

[El Gato]

So your position is that an ineligible person can actually, lawfully and Constitutionally *be* President? If enough people ignore, or are not aware of, that ineligibility?

I don't think so. The Constitution is clear.

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.

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

But "politics" cannot over the Constitution, except by first amending it. That's the point of a written Constitution. The founders were very distrustful of "democracy", and the Constitution binds even The People.

[Sudetenland]

Summarizing your arguments, you are:

1)Smarter than the Founding Fathers

2)More knowledgable than the Supreme Court Justices

3)Should be the sole arbiter of what is right.

"Incorrect. While the 1st Amendment specifically binds federal government, the 2nd binds ALL levels of government in that it is written in the passive voice; the passive voice thereof means that the *action* of infringing is the subject of the sentence and that the actor is [for intents and purposes] irrelevant."

Actually, all of the first 8 amendments fall under the 14th's incorporation according to current case law. Though initially it was not so, the Supreme Court has expanded incorporation to include virtually all of the protections under the first 8 Amendments. The second is no more binding, in light of those decisions than any of the rest. Passive versus active, you are arguing semantics. All apply equally under current interpretation.

President Obama is the President and no matter how much you jump up and down throwing a temper tantrum and screaming otherwise, won't change that fact. As far as any legal authority is concerned, he has met the requirements of the Constitution and is the legally elected President. The only conspiracy is the one partying between your ears.

Yes, I am loyal to the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the rule of law.

Given the choice of that or following an insane anarchist who apparently believes that we would be better off under the Articles of Confederation, I will stick with our Founding Fathers, not the looney down the street. But that's alright, you just keep tilting at those windmills, Don. The world is full of those charging off on quixotic causes. It's your constitutional right (as long as you don't incite to violence against our government). Don't mind the laughter, in your head you know you're right. LOL

[edge919]

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

I know exactly why they quoted it. They were trying to build an argument to support their rationale that the 14th amendment could be used to call the child of Chinese subjects a citizen of the United States. Learn to read and quit spreading lies. They made NO conclusion that natural born subject is = to natural born citizen.

[edge919]

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

The Constitution doesn't give a power to any specific branch for establishing the eligibility of the president. Again, there's already precedence where the court has reviewed eligibility of a Congressional electee. There's no constitutional restriction from the court performing the same review of presidential electee or fraudulently seated president.

[Sudetenland]

By the way, I like how you jump from topic to topic as each of your previous points are refuted . . . almost like liberals do.

So far we have established that Obama a C-in-C is not considered to be in the military, that there is a limit to freedom of the press and of speech. That there is a limit to 2nd Amendment protections, as laid out in Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald.

We have also established that because you say so, Pelosi is a liar, Obama is not qualified to be President even though he has been confirmed by Congress (for which you now assert most of Congress is conspiring over turn the Constitution).

We have also concluded that you argue semantics over substance and that (again like most liberals) criticize grammar over substance.

Are you sure you're not a troll?

[Sudetenland]

Wow! "John Wilkes Booth?" Yeah, you're not part of the lunatic fringe. Rod Serling would like you.

Have fun in your fantasy world, Don. I'm going to stick to the real world. Hope the Secret Service doesn't take you too seriously. In mentioning Booth as a means of removing the sitting President.

Bye now.

[OneWingedShark]

Summarizing your arguments, you are:
1)Smarter than the Founding Fathers

If that's the case, why does Thomas Jefferson say that the Constitution's purpose is to, in matters of power, bind him [the government] form mischief?
This is EXACTLY what I have said, though in less less general terms and using specific instances. {And, in fact, where in the Constitution does it bind PEOPLE from something? Excepting the 18th amendment... oh, wait, that's been repealed.}

2)More knowledgable than the Supreme Court Justices
No, I'm just more Constitutionally minded [than at least some of them]. Unlike you (and sadly many people) I do not believe that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, otherwise they could take something from it and twist it to something completely absurd... like Wickard v Filburn that you cited. {In fact, by calling it a bad decision on the part of the Supreme Court you undermine your own position.}
As a matter of fact, the Constitution says the following:

US Constitution: Article 6, Paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And the actual oath they take is as follows:

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Now, if it actually is the case that whatever the Supreme court says the Constitution is/says, then that's what it is then two things result:

1. The oath means only that the supreme court justice is bound only to agree with whatever he says when he is in concurrence of the sum-total of the court's renderings; and,
2. The oath is being violated each and every time that a supreme court justice writes a dissenting opinion of the court's rendering.

These are unavoidable; the second means, also, that the supreme court can NEVER use a dissenting opinion as support for some finding, as that dissenting opinion is, by the given definition, contrary to the Constitution.

3)Should be the sole arbiter of what is right.

Where do you get that?
I admit that I am both strong-willed & opinionated; but that itself does not mean that I am right.
However, I am a software engineer (computer scientist) and thus reasoning about such things as "scope" and "logic" are quite intrinsic to my work. I have attempted to present such reasoning, much of which you are failing to actually address.

"Incorrect. While the 1st Amendment specifically binds federal government, the 2nd binds ALL levels of government in that it is written in the passive voice; the passive voice thereof means that the *action* of infringing is the subject of the sentence and that the actor is [for intents and purposes] irrelevant."

Actually, all of the first 8 amendments fall under the 14th's incorporation according to current case law. Though initially it was not so, the Supreme Court has expanded incorporation to include virtually all of the protections under the first 8 Amendments. The second is no more binding, in light of those decisions than any of the rest. Passive versus active, you are arguing semantics. All apply equally under current interpretation.

You just bolstered my point, which was that the majority of the Bill of Rights is binding on all levels of government -- not just the federal government.
Just because they happen to fall under the 14th's incorporation clause does not mean that they were not already in effect. (The 14th came about because some of the states were refusing to apply the the Bill of Rights to the newly freed slaves as they should have.)

President Obama is the President and no matter how much you jump up and down throwing a temper tantrum and screaming otherwise, won't change that fact. As far as any legal authority is concerned, he has met the requirements of the Constitution and is the legally elected President.

You are making an assertion, several actually. President Obama's legitimately being able to hold the office of the president is dependent upon whether or not he is Constitutionally qualified to be so, the Legislature and even the Judicial CANNOT change the facts, and the facts are that the Constitution places the following requirement on the office:

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.

As you can see, if you are at all intellectually honest, that:
1) IF Obama is not a natural born Citizen, then he cannot be "be eligible to the Office of President"
OR
2) IF Obama is not at least 35 years old, with 14 of those being a resident within the United States, then he cannot be be eligible to the Office.
Again, this eligibility requirement is not superseded because Congress took a look at a bunch of papers and said "Obama Won!"

Yes, I am loyal to the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and the rule of law.

No you aren't, your very words on this thread betray you, particularly those on this post: "As far as any legal authority is concerned, he has met the requirements of the Constitution and is the legally elected President."
The Constitution says of itself, in Article 6, Paragraph 2:

This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby[..]

Now either the Supreme Law of the land, that is the Constitution, is a legal authority, or it is not. If it is, then the requirements it lays on the a person to hold the Office of President do not go away. If it is not, well then, we're all up shit creek w/o a paddle because the law is not supreme, but men.

Given the choice of that or following an insane anarchist who apparently believes that we would be better off under the Articles of Confederation, I will stick with our Founding Fathers, not the looney down the street.

This is the first mention on this thread of the Articles of Confederation; therefore, I find it to be a Non Sequitur.

But that's alright, you just keep tilting at those windmills, Don. The world is full of those charging off on quixotic causes. It's your constitutional right (as long as you don't incite to violence against our government). Don't mind the laughter, in your head you know you're right. LOL

That's quite insulting in its condescension.

[OneWingedShark]

>Have fun in your fantasy world, Don. I’m going to stick to the real world. Hope the Secret Service doesn’t take you too seriously. In mentioning Booth as a means of removing the sitting President.

I said nothing about whether it was right/acceptable, just that it was possible.
If the Secret Service shows up I will point out that the only reason that they made the trip is because I’m right and it REALLY IS A POSSIBILITY! *GASP!*

You obviously have little grasp of logic.
Presented with the problem “there are starving people in Africa,” the following solutions are logically equivalent solutions:
1 - We should feed them all.
2 - We should kill them all.

Pure Logic says nothing about the morality or desirability of these solutions; Philosophy, on the other hand, DOES.

[r9etb]

While I agree with your analysis, it does seem to me that a member of the military should have the right to challenge a superior (officer in effect), if something that officer has done makes him ineligible to conduct his duties.

In other words, you're encouraging the troops to debate the lawfulness of each order before they decide to follow it. Surely you know better than that.

[OneWingedShark]

>Are you sure you’re not a troll?

Yes.

>We have also concluded that you argue semantics over substance and that (again like most liberals) criticize grammar over substance.

I hate to break it to you [that’s a lie... I enjoy it], but grammar can be [and often is] KEY in determining the substance/meaning of a sentence; consider the following two sentences only one word is changed and that is in capitalization, even the word-ordering is the same:
I helped my uncle Jack off a horse.
I helped my uncle jack off a horse.

The two sentences mean two very different things, don’t they?

Order is key too, consider:
I’m afraid so.
I’m so afraid.

The two sentences mean two very different things, don’t they?

[OneWingedShark]

>>While I agree with your analysis, it does seem to me that a member of the military should have the right to challenge a superior (officer in effect), if something that officer has done makes him ineligible to conduct his duties.
>
>In other words, you’re encouraging the troops to debate the lawfulness of each order before they decide to follow it. Surely you know better than that.

Nuremberg already did that.

[r9etb]

Nuremberg already did that.

By noting that "just following orders" is not an excuse.

But at the same time, the idea that soldiers get to debate their orders as a matter of course.... is military suicide.

[Mr Rogers]

The Court used TWO arguments: That WKA was a NBC and thus a citizen, and that the 14th made him a citizen. Half the decision is based on the meaning of NBC. It showed WKA met the qualifications of NB Subject, and thus NBC, and thus was a citizen.

It is poor form to ignore half of a ruling just because you don’t like it. I’ve linked below for anyone who wants to read it themselves and see which of us is telling the truth - assuming, of course, that they don’t believe the Indiana courts, the SCOTUS rejection of birther cases, etc...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[Mr Rogers]

See post 218. The facts, which birthers like to ignore and which explains why birthers cannot win a case in court.

Meanwhile - have you started disobeying those illegally passed tax laws yet, or are you still just encouraging the military to disobey ‘illegal’ orders?

[OneWingedShark]

>>Nuremberg already did that.
>
>By noting that “just following orders” is not an excuse.
>
>But at the same time, the idea that soldiers get to debate their orders as a matter of course.... is military suicide.

True, and this result was considered by the prosecution (that ‘orders’ were “sacred” to the military) and that disallowing/refuting that defense would open this box of military suicide. Of course history shows that this result was deemed acceptable by the prosecution as it is what the prosecution used.

The government already “made its bed” on this matter, it is now time for them to lie in it.