Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Thank you “little” jamase for confirming our point that the CONSTITUTION was trampled on by your mentor Nazy Pelosi’s Houdini trick, the special “sworn” aka faked affidavit, ONLY to the State of Hawaii!
If you had checked the dates on the various documents you wouldn’t have posted these documents, which in page 2, where it all started was dated August 27, 2008 and that Hawaii could NOT confirm your dear Fuehrer’s constitutionality to be on their ballots, so they needed Nazy’s “voice” to cover their backs legally, LOL!!
It does not come as a surprise when posted by a paid DOJ Holder’s Benedict Arnold brigade. You must really be proud that you got an illegal alien in office who now is tearing the United States of America apart from within!!!
Who was the first page addressed to, and did you ever hear about Gilardy, the attorney???
I do wonder though why the Chief Elections Official of Hawai’i Kevin B. Cronin stated that Barack Obama and Joe Biden WERE qualified to appear on the Hawai’i ballot based on the forms sent by BOTH the Hawai’i Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party. Is he blind? Is he a Democrat? Was he paid off by Nazi Pelouzi?
I am certain that if Birthers and Afterbirthers join hands and hearts we can stop Barack Obama from ever being sworn in as President of the United States.
ROTFLMFAO!!
What a joke.
Maybe the USSC was wrong.
Maybe there was a conspiracy to install GWB.
All those points were argued rather vehemently on the left.
How can you blithely wave the problem away with a simple “The USSC decided this...”?
I did think throught it. It’s birthers who aren’t thinking. We agree that Obama is not a natural born citizen according to our understanding of the original definition and our interpretations of WKA.
However, we disgaree that he is the sitting POTUS. Unless and until Obama is found legally ineligible by a governing authority, he is executing the office of POTUS.
Many believed that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional when it was passed. Did that belief prevent its effect upon us? No. It was the law of the land and enforced as such until it was overturned and found to be unconstitutional.
Many of us believe that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Does that belief prevent its effect upon us right now? No. Unless and until it is found to be unconstitutional, it has the full effect of law.
The same holds true for Obama as the sitting POTUS. Unless and until he is found to be constitutionally disabled, he sits in the Oval Office and executes his duties.
I did think throught it. It’s birthers who aren’t thinking. We agree that Obama is not a natural born citizen according to our understanding of the original definition and our interpretations of WKA.
However, we disgaree that he is the sitting POTUS. Unless and until Obama is found legally ineligible by a governing authority, he is executing the office of POTUS.
Many believed that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional when it was passed. Did that belief prevent its effect upon us? No. It was the law of the land and enforced as such until it was overturned and found to be unconstitutional.
Many of us believe that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Does that belief prevent its effect upon us right now? No. Unless and until it is found to be unconstitutional, it has the full effect of law.
The same holds true for Obama as the sitting POTUS. Unless and until he is found to be constitutionally disabled, he sits in the Oval Office and executes his duties.
I don't think this is in dispute. Everyone here agrees there are conditions under which it is not only permissable, but morally obligatory to disobey an order.
when it is well-known that there are conditions that warrant disobedience.
Yes, we all know there are such conditions. However, I don't think any are applicable in this case.
When I say “we,” I mean you and I.
When I say “we,” I mean you and I.
I am SO tired of double posts!!! I’m on a cell phone. I’m not clicking post twice. I see many others experiencing the same thing. Grrrrrrr!
The Constitution forbids a President elect who “failed to qualify” from ever having the presidential powers - which are given to the VP elect.
It’s not supposed to be an “if he’s later found to be ineligible” situation. It’s supposed to be “if he hasn’t proven himself eligible by Jan 20th he is never even GIVEN the keys to the car; the VP elect gets them”.
He failed to qualify. He was not lawfully certified as the winner of the electoral vote, and he has no legally-valid documents proving he is both old enough to be president and a natural born US citizen. The BC that would prove his age (which he’s been using for documentation his whole life) does not prove he is a natural born US citizen because it is not from the US. The BC he has from the US is not legally valid because it is amended and (almost certainly also) late.
If a criminal defendant is being tried for conduct that was made criminal by a statute that was passed by Congress in 1931 and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover, can he force the prosecution to prove that Hoover had each of the constitutional qualifications (e.g., natural born citizen, age, residency, etc.)? If the trial judge rules that the prosecutor doesn’t have to prove these facts and the jury convicts the defendant, is the conviction valid even though we don’t know whether the statute was signed into law by a legitimate president?
The process was followed. At some point we do have to accept what the process has concluded, and I recognize that is why we have the de facto officer doctrine, etc.
But in this particular case, the courts are wrongly denying standing, and SCOTUS - by its own admission - is “evading the issue”, which may be OK for issues that don’t have national security implications but which is treason on the part of the court when it results in the US having no Commander-in-Chief, which is the situation we have right now.
The problem we have right now is with SCOTUS, pure and simple. There are several reasons they could be refusing to resolve this issue.
Could be it’s on the back burner until the republicans take the Congress so that the people who perpetrated the fraud (the dems) won’t be rewarded by being allowed to decide how an interim President is to be chosen, as prescribed by the 20th Amendment since the winner of the electoral vote has not even to this day been lawfully certified.
Could be because the justices were threatened somehow.
I don’t know what is the case, but I know that as we stand right now, we have someone who was inaugurated without ever being lawfully certified as the electoral winner. That is a coup. And SCOTUS needs to get its rear in gear and deal with it.
Obama WAS “given the keys.” Biden is not acting as POTUS. Obama was sworn in and is acting as POTUS. It’s not complicated.
Everything you offered regarding his documentation is pure speculation. None of it has been reviewed or verified by a governing authority. It may be accurate. It may not. Until you can prove it in a court of law, it has no force.
I am not arguing against the de facto officer doctrine.
What I am saying is that the DOD is accusing Lakin of disobeying a LAWFUL order. Whether he has to obey it even if it’s unlawful is irrelevant. The charge before Lakin right now is that he disobeyed a lawful order. He didn’t. He disobeyed unlawful orders(according to the elements of Article 92 because they were contrary to the Constitution) that the de facto officer doctrine would require him to follow anyway.
Judge Lind basically said that if somebody is required to follow the orders then they are lawful orders. She said that on a whim, not on the basis of any cited precedent or on the basis of the definitions provided in the actual relevant law (ARticle 92). Article 92 says NOTHING about whether the person has to obey the orders - only about lawful orders.
The other charge (shoot, can’t remember which one - missing movement?) basically charges the person with disobeying an order they are required to obey. On that one the DOD may have a point, because of the de facto officer doctrine. But by charging him with an Article 92 violation, the DOD made the issue the LAWFULNESS of the orders, and not simply whether the orders have to be obeyed anyway.
Judge Lind should know the difference. I’m not sure whether she is just obeying orders from the higher-ups or if she’s playing stupid on this, but the fact is that she cited no legal rationale for her “inference” that an order is lawful if it has to be obeyed - especially since the elements of Article 92 come straight out and say what constitutes a lawful order and includes nothing to do with whether it has to be obeyed.
LOL....this is the LAME BS you come with after getting nailed on your ridiculous post??
ROTFLMFAO!!
What a joke.
Obama WAS “given the keys.” Biden is not acting as POTUS. Obama was sworn in and is acting as POTUS. It’s not complicated.
Everything you offered regarding his documentation is pure speculation. None of it has been reviewed or verified by a governing authority. It may be accurate. It may not. Until you can prove it in a court of law, it has no force.
Did “Acting President” Joe Biden appoint two Justices to the US Supreme Court that were confirmed by the United States Senate?
Did “Acting President” Biden send additional US troops to Afghanistan and withdraw combat troops from Iraq?
My hypothetical criminal defendant is about to be convicted of violating a federal statute. Borrowing your theory, that federal statute is unconstitutional if it was signed by a president who lacked constitutional qualifications and was thus illegitmate.
Are you saying that it would be constitutional to convict a fellow of violating an unconstitutional statute?
Or is there something you think is special about Lakin or this president?
Could it be that the USSC is correct?
According to the birthers? I have no idea. According to reality. Nope.
According to the birthers? I have no idea. According to reality. Nope.
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.