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?
And I would also add that we do not have any video of Obama saying the exact oath of office required. We have an audiotape. Could we prove that the actual Constitutional oath happened? Only circumstantially.
Dick Cheney was required to ask for objections 50 times; he failed to do it even once.
Obama mixed up what? Two words? So they had him take the oath over again, JUST TO BE SURE. But the 50 times that Cheney failed to say, “Are there any objections?” all passed by without a blink. There is a reason the law put that requirement in there. It is not a trifle. Any more than a Miranda warning is a trifle. Or an oath of office is a trifle.
Crazy.
But it’s the same thing we’ve observed everywhere else: the rule of law can be dispensed with when it’s not convenient. It is fitting that this coup was effected using the same lawlessness with which he has ruled (and I don’t mean governed; I mean ruled) ever since. The Obama coup - illegal from the start and continuing that way ever since.
That's the whole difference between de facto and de jure. If all of the correct legal steps were followed, Obama would be president de jure. If they weren't, he is still President de facto.
I don't believe there is any requirement to call for objections unless they were first made in writing, but that is irrelevant to this issue; the whole point of the de facto officer doctrine is to deal with people who were not lawfully elected-- otherwise, the doctrine would never apply.
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)]
If you noticed, Nazi Pelosi jumped out of her seat and overpowered Dick Cheney with loud plus RAT applause, even before he had a chance to ask for an objection, if there ever was on!!!
If you noticed, Nazi Pelosi jumped out of her seat and overpowered Dick Cheney with loud plus RAT applause, even before he had a chance to ask for an objection, if there ever was one!!!