Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OBAMA IS LEGAL
US LEGAL ^ | March 4, 2013 | knarf

Posted on 03/04/2013 5:24:01 AM PST by knarf

While researching another matter, I came across this startling bit of legality ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: birthers; legitimacy; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
De Facto Officer Law & Legal Definition

De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

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.

The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. “An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:

First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;

Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;

Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;

Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such”. [Jersey City v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]

1 posted on 03/04/2013 5:24:05 AM PST by knarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: knarf

Are you effing kidding me?

Really hate the American legal system sometimes....


2 posted on 03/04/2013 5:33:37 AM PST by Thorliveshere (Tais deau sá taghdedaul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

ROFLMAO

and a 3 dollar bill is valid if people don’t question it long enough


3 posted on 03/04/2013 5:33:44 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Yep. Didn’t you know that?


4 posted on 03/04/2013 5:33:54 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Throw him out!!!


5 posted on 03/04/2013 5:34:12 AM PST by wesagain (The God #Elohim# of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One True GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible

The De Facto President?
Sounds like a good book title.

6 posted on 03/04/2013 5:34:17 AM PST by grobdriver (Vivere liberi aut mori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

knarf, is this federal. state, or municipal law?


7 posted on 03/04/2013 5:36:14 AM PST by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Not in fact .. (pun intended)

I've read so much here about his (il)legitimacy, and I can't remember much being cited FOR his legality.

8 posted on 03/04/2013 5:36:31 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: knarf

No surprise here. I was posting basically the same concept right after the 2008 election. At that point, questions about his eligibility became moot. With his reelection, the eligibility issue became a non-issue.


9 posted on 03/04/2013 5:36:49 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
Not sure ... I posted it while I was still angry and interested.

I'll look later (or someone may want the ministry themselves ... )

'Cause like I said, I was researchin' something else ... that I still need to research.

10 posted on 03/04/2013 5:38:30 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: knarf

btw:

Article 2, Section 4 states:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

and last i checked, forgery, fraud, and identity theft were crimes in the United States all punishable by prison terms of multiple years

if he’s so ‘legal’ ... then he’d have no problem OFFICIALLY SUBMITTING his birth certificate and selective service as official documents of eligibility / qualifying papers

right?


11 posted on 03/04/2013 5:40:14 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
With his reelection, the eligibility issue became a non-issue.

It can still be used to ruin his legacy. I'd certainly get a lot of satisfaction if it could be proven to the country and the world that he's a fraud and a liar. Even if he couldn't be removed.

12 posted on 03/04/2013 5:45:42 AM PST by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Case Law does not supersede the restraints of government by the Constitution....

The only way that Obozo is a “natural born” citizen as required under the Constitution is if his father is other than BHO, Sr. That is probably the case and he “may” be a “natural born” citizen. He has never submitted evidence that he is.

This is a stupid dispute. This has gone on so long that it is obvious that “high treason” is taking place all over Washington, DC at the highest levels of government. All 3 branches of government know he is a Fraud, impostor and illegally in this office. The quest is “WHY”? And it is unanswered.

It is certain from his actions that he is a “natural born” Commie B_tard.

Totalitarianism in all it's forms is evil. Dictator, Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism and all forms.

I doubt Obozo was born in Kenya. That was only something that he claimed because he at the time benefited from saying it.

I doubt that BHO, Sr. was in fact his biological father. In my opinion, it is most likely that FMD is his biological father.

There is NO evidence of his birth in HI. None.

His entire “history” is conjured.

But it is certain that he like his minions serve the “father-of-lies”.

He may fool or blackmail men, but God is not deceived.

13 posted on 03/04/2013 5:46:19 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Obama holds the office of President of The United States of America. That office is defined and controlled by The Constitution of The United States of America.

Any other documents used to define any portion or duty of that office is no better than toilet paper.

But apparently these days so is our Constitution. But that's a discussion for another thread.

14 posted on 03/04/2013 5:48:59 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Here once the embattled farmers stood... And fired the shot heard round the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

The only chance we had to remove him was through the ballotbox.


15 posted on 03/04/2013 5:50:27 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: knarf

a.k.a. “Possession is 9/10ths of the law”


16 posted on 03/04/2013 5:51:30 AM PST by The Duke (We don't rent pigs, but apparently we *do* ELECT them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
So I look at it 2 ways....

If his father is Obama Sr., we get him for espionage, on what he has done (with the willing idiots in DC) them we get for treason

If his father is an American, then we get him for treason, and we still get the idiots in DC on the same charge....

Win, Win

With a special trial because she is so special, sister Nancy not only gets a special "we will let you know what the punishment is after your found guilty" of fraud, treason, insider trading, malfeasance and felony stupidity.

Dick Chaney as well for failing to do his job in certifying the election.

Just a thought.

17 posted on 03/04/2013 6:00:08 AM PST by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knarf

It’s considerably worse for the office of the POTUS, as congress and the courts have essentially agreed that the POTUS is above the law.

The idea evolved over the years, with highlights such as the Marbury v. Madison (1810) decision, which among other things established that the president cannot be compelled to act through a writ of mandamus.

This meant that from that point presidential power was increased when the president could thwart efforts to *prevent* him from acting.

Then the presidents learned they could turn benign and ceremonial acts in presidential powers, a good example being when Teddy Roosevelt turned the “presidential proclamation” into a means for the federal government to seize vast amounts of state lands by decree, with the agreement of congress. Most of the presidents since then have done so.

Later massive power grabs, including one relevant to Obama, is that congress and the courts regard the presidential pardon as sacrosanct. But more so, that because a president *could* have given a pardon to his cabinet, his VP, or even *himself*, that they must assume he did give them pardons.

Thus his entire cabinet is in effect immune from prosecution, even after he leaves office, unless he renounces their immunity or they commit offenses while remaining in non-protected government office after he leaves, but only for offenses committed there.

And, as we’ve all seen, while a hostile House of Representatives is willing to impeach, the senate is perpetually unwilling.


18 posted on 03/04/2013 6:17:36 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on FR, but IMHO, the Second Amendment covers this glitch in the law. They can pass what they want, but they still work for the ones with the guns.

Now of course they have purchased 2700 armored vehicles and 1.8 billion rounds with 30,000 UAV's, but we still outnumber them.

19 posted on 03/04/2013 6:17:58 AM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I actually see this as good news. Given that the “Constitutional crisis” that would ensue were Obama to be found ineligible and removed from office involves the question of validity of all of the law that has been created under his bogus administration, this idea eliminates an important perceived impediment to his removal.

Following that, the laws themselves would be vastly discredited, even if they remain in effect, and the potential for repeal greatly enhanced, even if they were merely to be put to a vote again to put a stamp of legitimacy on them.

Those voting for these things on a “second chance” vote would have to support them on their merits, and at risk of their own reputations, instead of hiding behind the fig leaf of “supporting the President”.


20 posted on 03/04/2013 6:37:13 AM PST by motor_racer (Pete, do you ever get tired, of the driving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson