Posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST by rxsid
This also sounds like you’re saying that if somebody tries to wrongly claim the presidency it is up to the people to physically make sure he never gets away with it. Is that what you’re saying?
How would you propose the people stop him? Are you saying that the secret service ultimately determines who is the POTUS - because if I tried what Obama has tried they would stop me but they wouldn’t stop him?
How is that anything but a military/law enforcement coup, then, that put Obama in power?
You couple the obstruction of justice charges and conspiracy to commit fraud along with the public have known for a very long time Obama was ineligible, it is inconceivable that Obama is covered under the de facto Doctrine. Judges could try and expand legal reasoning for the DFOD. In the words of X-judge Alcee Hastings, 'We make crap up' to "mitigate the damage" they would think could happen to the country. But politically Obama and the Dems would be done. You could stick a fork in them.
But the point of this case is that Vice President Cheney and the joint session of Congress did NOT lawfully certify Obama as the winner of the electoral vote.
And they clearly didn’t. The requirement of the law is clear and it didn’t happen. It is required that they ask for any objections, and they didn’t.
We’re talking about a country which lets obviously guilty people go free if the police fail to follow to the letter the exact procedure of reading the exact words of a Miranda warning.
Use that standard.
Obama has never been LAWFULLY declared the winner of the electoral vote.
When you realize that, you see that it may be Chief Justice Roberts who has to recuse himself as well, because the entire superficial “legitimacy” of Obama stands on the image of Roberts - without LEGAL reason to do so - swearing in Obama. What Roberts did was unlawful. He can’t just swear in somebody who has never been lawfully declared to be the electoral winner.
If Roberts swore me in would I then be the POTUS? I’ve never been lawfully declared the electoral winner or qualified, but then neither has Obama so what’s the difference? Why would it be considered a coup if he swore me in but considered a “de facto officer” if he did it to Obama? In a legal sense, what exactly is the difference?
How can Obama be a de facto officer when the step to declare him the electoral winner never fulfilled the legal requirements?
Those steps are a very unlikely for a “coup!”
Someone would have had to file a charge that the law was violated. No one has filed such a charge. If you drive 65 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone and no cop pulls you over, you broke the law but there is no effect to your law breaking.
Former Vice President Cheney would say that since objections had to be submitted in writing and since no written objections had been received, calling for objections was moot. Furthermore, any of the 535 members of Congress could have stood and raised a point of order concerning a call for objections, none did.
Obama is a “de facto officer” because he has operated with presidential authority for a year and ten months now. He has signed bills into law that are in force; he has signed treaties with foreign governments; he has ordered troops into harm’s way that are in harm’s way. He has addressed both Houses of Congress and the caucuses of both major parties and he has appointed hundreds of officials to positions in the government that have been confirmed by the US Senate and have taken their posts.
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.” [Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).]
“The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” [63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984)]
"The de facto officer doctrine (DFOD) would not save Obama or the Dems from destruction. If the truth ever became evident, we would see a conspiracy to commit fraud and obstruction of justice. In all the cases, the officers in question became known after the fact...that the defendants found out later that the officers had no right to their offices. Millions of people have known otherwise that Obama was not eligible, and numerous of court cases have been filed against Obama for more than 2 years.
You couple the obstruction of justice charges and conspiracy to commit fraud along with the public have known for a very long time Obama was ineligible, it is inconceivable that Obama is covered under the de facto Doctrine. Judges could try and expand legal reasoning for the DFOD. In the words of X-judge Alcee Hastings, 'We make crap up' to "mitigate the damage" they would think could happen to the country. But politically Obama and the Dems would be done. You could stick a fork in them. "
And the funds that pay Jammmesseeee could go dry.
If you really believe Obama is ineligible, you have a clear remedy— the new House of Representatives can subpoena all of his birth records, or anything else that might bear on the issue. Don’t expect the courts to get involved; they haven’t and they won’t. I have been saying all of this for the last two years.
As so does most posters on FR - overwhelmingly.
you have a clear remedy— the new House of Representatives can subpoena all of his birth records, or anything else that might bear on the issue.
That may happen.
Don’t expect the courts to get involved; they haven’t and they won’t. I have been saying all of this for the last two years.
They may become involved when they "believe" the case has reached "Ripeness" to proceed to litigate it in open court.
Exactly. What we have a case where the rule of law was evaded.
I have to say I’m still reeling over the implication that the reason Obama is in the White House is not because of the rule of law but because none of us physically forced him out of it.
Somebody commented that Rush said they should change the locks on the White House so Obama can’t get back in when he comes home. Now to hear a lawyer basically say that’s where we’re at with Obama - that he holds the office because nobody has physically locked him out yet - is quite stunning.
In a legal sense, according to the de facto officer doctrine, Obama’s takeover was quite literally a coup. All the legal wrangling and talk about “peaceful transfer of power” and “deciding by the ballot rather than by the sword” was just gobbledygook to keep us from what has always determined the laws of the jungle - sheer force.
Maybe I’m hearing wrong. I hope so. I’m not comfortable with this. I much prefer the rule of law. Apparently SCOTUS thought we could bypass that part.
You know, for as long as we’ve been dealing with this, that still hits me between the eyeballs. I still can’t quite absorb that, that the rule of law has just been suspended by the people who are put in place as the ultimate arbiters of the law.
What recourse do the citizens have when their Congress breaks the law?
That is the bigger issue here. This long ago ceased to be about Obama. It’s about the rule of law, which is nonexistent at this point.
So what can we do when Congress breaks the law, like they’ve been doing ever since Obama staged his coup?
We saw the answer to that question last Tuesday.
You are hearing wrong. The de facto officer doctrine has nothing to do with the question of whether Obama is legally President or the question of whether he should be removed from office. The doctrine doesn't even come into play until and unless he is removed from office. The de facto officer doctrine speaks only to the question of whether people he appointed to office before his removal stay in office after he is removed.
If so, then they have abdicated their duties to 'Check and Balance' the Executive Branch and Obama under judicial review.
We can vote them out after the damage is done. And then new people can break the laws and screw us into perpetuity.
Sounds like we the people get to be the 72 virgins in this arrangement. Every four years we get our virginity back so the new masters can start all over with us, screwing us while we scream in vain for relief.
Great.
Nov. 23 ... Ping!
Prayers for the warriors for truth
and the rule of law!
Obama has never lawfully been declared the winner of the electoral vote. There is nothing in our laws that justifies him living in the White House. He is just as out of place there right now as I would be if I was living there.
This isn’t hypothetical. The reason Obama gets to live in the White House is because enough of us didn’t go on the lawn and block the doors to keep him from getting in.
Because there sure as heck isn’t any LAWFUL reason for him to be there.
And that is disturbing to me. Is that disturbing to you? His claim to legitimacy is the same as the claims of every third-world thug that has burned and pillaged his way into power. How does that make you feel about America as we stand today?
Yup.
Doesn’t seem like there’s been much progress since I posted this
Certifigate Post Mortem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2168149/posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:42:15 AM · by Kevmo · 141 replies · 4,335+ views
Vanity ^ | Jan 20, 2009 | Kevmo
Maybe I’m just too naive, but I can’t imagine anybody doing this unless they were being threatened.
Then again, there are a lot of things I can’t imagine, that people have been capable of. It just feels so much more like betrayal when it’s done by the people who know how to talk as if they’re good guys.
Judge Lind took judicial notice of Congress certifying Obama as the electoral winner. Do you know if Lakin’s counsel has asked that that be removed because the certification was not lawfully done? Without that being lawfully done, Obama’s authority HAS been obstructed, specifically by Kerchner’s court case - so Obama would not fit the definition of a de facto officer and that argument would have to be taken out of consideration.
It would also mean that it can’t be a political question because Congress can’t impeach a president who has never even been lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote. Actually, a de facto president couldn’t even be impeached because they were never actually the POTUS. What is the procedure to get rid of a de facto POTUS, since impeachment isn’t possible?
That screws up almost the entire decision by Lind. Not that she really cares. Sigh.
Can you please give us more details about this interview? I’m starting to think this is an old wives’ tale.
It wasn’t actually an interview. You can read about it and see the video of it at http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=142101
It's not an old wives tale. Cong Jose Serrano,Bronx - during a House Appropriations Committee hearing on the subject of funding the Judiciary Branch asked Justice Thomas if citizens of Puerto Rico could become president. Justice Thomas refused to answer the question because of the swirling controversy and shadow of the Obama eligibility question. Justice Thomas said we are "Evading" that question. Under different circumstances, Thomas would have likely gave Serrano an opinion on the subject.
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.