Replies

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.

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.

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.