Posted on 10/31/2013 8:31:25 AM PDT by privatedrive
Please help me understand. Why don't we subpoena the President? The daily lies about Obamacare have reached the point where Americans need some answers from the President - officially and under oath. There's too much at stake here not to do this.
I think that he could claim Executive Privilege, but doesn't he need some justification (such as national security) to do so? And also I believe that ignoring a subpoena is grounds for impeachment. Any constitutional scholars out there? Why are we not issuing a subpoena to Barack Obama?
If there was ever a time where we needed someone with the guts to do this, it's now.
No one from either party with balls enough, nor love of country. As simple as that.
Executive privilege!
I’m not sure the checks and balances in the constitution allow it, at least if the plaintiff is the congress or judiciary.
The constitution did not include provisions for such deliberately calculated malfeasance.
All other legal appearances are voluntary.
What makes you think he would not just lie under oath?
“Please help me understand. Why don’t we subpoena the President?”
Congress cannot subpoena a sitting President due to the Separation of Powers contained in the Constitution.
Right...because he’ll tell the truth THIS time. He would lie under oath in a heartbeat, especially after putting his hand on the Bible.
No thanks...there’s no reason to believe a word he says, and I personally WILL NOT listen to him. Many in Congress probably feel the same way.
Answer: Because he isn’t a white Republican.
Separation of powers basically gives the President immunity from the laws that apply to us serfs.
However, I think that the House should start saying that they think it’s time he came for a committee hearing and repeat it often.... make it look as though Obama is hiding.
The low information voter has no idea about how the Constitution works.
Obama is ripe for a subpoena due to the failure of the ACA.
Obama is a usurper because he naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. When an individual has a direct, injurious impact upon them because of a law sign by a usurper, then they can sue the Federal Government to recover damages and enjoin the Federal government from committing further direct harm upon the individual.
For example, let’s say a person has been notified by the insurance company their health insurance enforced before the ACA has been cancelled because of the ACA. This individual can sue in Federal Court to claim Obama is a usurper, Obama must prove he is eligible to be President because the individual objects to the laws and regulations imposed upon them by a usurper, subpoena Obama’s birth records, Occidental school records and immigration records to prove he is a usurper, and demand they receive a waiver from the ACA until Obama leaves office and a qualified President takes office.
Or ...
The individual can sue HHS Secretary Sebelius and Obama for violating the Appointment’s Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The individual asserts Obama is a usurper and Appointments by a usurper are invalidated when there is a direct and immediate impact on the plaintiff.
The U.S. Constitution was written to protect the People from the Government. The Will of the People, by a majority vote of the Electors, can vote a usurper as POTUS. But, the Bill of Rights protects individuals from disparate impact of a usurper and his appointments. The DeFacto Officer Doctrine indemnifies the U.S. Government and insulates the Federal government from lawsuits AFTER the usurper and exposed and has exited the office.
They would be targeting the wrong person, they should be targeting the shadow government...the czars.
DERELICTION OF DUTY file for the upcoming Impeachment of the White House resident commonly known as “B. Hussein Obama,” also known as Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
The answer can be described as O.D.D.; Obfuscation, Delay and Denial. Even if we had GOP big and bad enough to confront Obama with all these charges, Holder and the Media would help Obama to drag the proceedings out for a long, long time. The goal being to prevent any real action until his second term is finally over.
Couldn’t some Congressional committee simply “invite” or “request” the wretch to appear? Then politely ask if he would be willing to take an oath?
Obummer wouldn’t look good if he declined the invitation, and we all know how important appearances are to him.
“The only legal method to forcibly deal with a sitting President is Impeachment and Conviction.
All other legal appearances are voluntary.”
thanks - Is this an opinion or can anyone cite actual law to validate this?
“Congress cannot subpoena a sitting President due to the Separation of Powers contained in the Constitution.”
Thanks - but I cannot find this anywhere in the Constitution. Can anyone help please?
One of the judges in the countless eligibility cases ordered him to show up in court. hussein and his lawyers gave a one fingered reply. Case closed.
Grand Jury indictment. It worked to get bubba’s testimony.
found this one the net - cannot take credit for it or verify its accuracy:
“This would cause a constitutional crisis that would require the supreme court to resolve, they may direct that he was never president, they may direct the Legislature to take up articles of impeachment. since this has never happened it could be interesting.”
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.