What Difference Does it Make?
Posted on 02/06/2013 3:53:52 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Kathleen O’Leary, Presiding Judge of the 4th District Court of Appeal reinstated the Appeal Taitz v Obama et al filed by the candidate for the U.S. Senate Attorney Orly Taitz.
Appeal at hand involves Senator Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
In a sane world, it should be one or the other; either the documents are produced, or the accused/perps walk. But then, if A2S1C5 and the 20th Amendment can be blown off, why not the 6th as well?
If judges began letting these people off, it would certainly draw attention! :)
Say what you will about the merits of her claim and her tenacity, but she is a horrible lawyer.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because there’s no money in it.
A lot of that is not correct.
There is abundant Supreme Court authority for the proposition that when a person who is not eligible to hold a position is de facto installed, they do not legally hold the office and their acts are void.
So those acts which take a "president" to make effective are of no force. The two Supreme Court appointments are two good examples; there are others.
But that does not vitiate everything that has happened in his period either.
Absent intervening adjournments or other interruptions, Congress passes a bill; the President has ten days in which to sign it into law; or veto it. If the President does not act in the ten days, the bill becomes law.
So if you view legislation which was passed which he executed as simply without execution because his execution was void; the ten days passes; it would seem to me that the Court would hold the legislation became effective without the signature of the sitting President or action by a sitting President to Veto it.
On the other hand, as we know, if Congress adjourns after the bill is passed but without signature or veto, the Constitution provides that the bill is "pocket vetoed". So if there was legislation in that category, it would not have become law.
Under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, the Constitution addresses the current situation specifically. When the election of an eligible person as Vice President is certified but no eligible person is certified as President, the Vice President becomes acting President. Since January 2008, Biden has been Acting President.
I believe that some Presidential power has, at the insistence of Mrs. Clinton and Panetta, been exercised jointly or otherwise by Biden.
So a fair amount of action has been taken that stands up as effective.
Obamacare? I am not certain as to the timing of passage and adjournment. I now am inclined to believe that Congress did not adjourn until ten days had passed and thus that Obamacare became law but I have not studied the record sufficiently to render an opinion.
Remember the good old days when we all thought Bill and Hillary would wind up in jail?
What Difference Does it Make?
Spackle
lots od Spackle
You’re a member of the ‘Fogbow’ website.
What is a ‘Ping’?
Ping is FR slang for calling someone to a thread by putting their name in the To: box.
I think it came from The Hunt For Red October.
The other thing you’ll often see is a Bump, BumpTo The Top, or BTTT.
Every time a thread is commented on it goes to the top of the recent posts list and is easier to find.
A ping calles specific people to a thread, a bump makes a thread more visible to everyone.
Welcome to FR! Feel free to ask any question, any time. (Sometimes you’ll get a straight answer, sometimes heavy sarcasm...)
I’ve been a member of FR since 1998.
I am not familiar with that "abundant Supreme Court authority." Could you post the citations?
Here are the US Supreme Court precedent rulings:
“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 new president (Biden) could simply pardon the outgoing president and then it would just be a simple case of presidential succession via the 25th Amendment.
So?
Lurking Libertarian is one of the few remaining freeper lawyers willing to tolerate the juvenile name calling in an effort to counter all the misinformation copied and pasted from one birther blogpimp to another.
I appreciate LL’s contribution to these threads, and if you are interested in reality, you should too.
Or you could hang out at one of the many birther echo chamber websites where they're always in search of “the one honest judge”, and anticipate the Corsi press conference where he finally names the forger...but for some odd reason, those seem to be always just out of reach...
Me...I'm much more skeptical of the birther noobs who seem really interested in keeping false hope alive.
The new president (Biden) could simply pardon the outgoing president and then it would just be a simple case of presidential succession via the 25th Amendment.
You may need to get a real lawyer to explain the difference to you but those cases are procedural deficiency cases, not eligibility cases. Miscounted votes; voters in the wrong place etc. wouldn't viatiate the outcome once established by whatever political procedure is in effect to validate it.
Zero's problem is eligibility to hold the office. Same as if he was only 20 years old when elected--not eligible to hold the office. Assuming he is not a natural born citizen, nor for that matter a citizen at all, he isn't eligibile and isn't President--that simple.
Pardon by Biden? To do what? Wouldn't affect validity of his actions in office--to the extent acts were invalid they remain invalid unless implemented by acts of a real President. For example, Biden could renominate Sotomayor or Kegan; try to get them confirmed again. Anything is possible.
There are criminal acts involved by a number of people--maybe even including Biden. Would Biden pardon the perps? Maybe but probably not.
Wouldn't surprise you if at more than one point in this dance, Biden was looking at his own hole card.
"The order of dismissal is vacated and the appeal is reinstated".
de facto officer doctrine does not apply read the applicable cases....his eligibility has been contested for years, this is no administrative error or nunc pro tunc
Orly:
Success = “DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME”
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.