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

To: xkaydet65
Your anger and frustration is misdirected. I don't like 0bama one bit.

However, think about the consequences to what you have said. What if President Jindal orders forces into Korea and a soldier who didn't him like sues over eligibility?

The place, according to the US Constitution, to address this is the US Congress not the courts. Remember we conservatives who believe in original intent, do not want courts involved where the consttitution doesn't permit them.

35 posted on 07/16/2009 9:50:58 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sarah Palin-Jim DeMint 2012 - Liz Cheney for Sec of State - Duncan Hunter SecDef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Perdogg

That’s so cold war. Our troops would never need to go to Korea. They are crazy enough to try to nuke us. The ? is would O do the President duty to Protect America.


41 posted on 07/16/2009 9:54:40 AM PDT by Marty62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
However, think about the consequences to what you have said. What if President Jindal orders forces into Korea and a soldier who didn't him like sues over eligibility?

To start with there will never be a President Jindal, but supposing he was elected, he is eligible, there would be no eligibility problem with Jindal. Military personnel would have no standing to question his eligibility so your whole point is moot.

The place to settle the Bozo eligibility question is in the courts because Congress will never approach it. The dimwits don't care about the people, they only care about power, they want to be the next politburo and have total control over us. They hate the constitution and the people of this country who stand behind it.

61 posted on 07/16/2009 10:09:13 AM PDT by calex59 (I, me, myself, am actually Jim Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

I don’t think a court could constitutionally order the President to step down even if the court ruled Obama was inelligible. Congress would have to do that.

But if a court ruled Obama was inelligible, any congressman who voted to keep him in office would be guilty of treason, public pressure would be strong, and I think Congress would remove him.

The trick is finding a reason for the courts to examine the evidence, where the filer both has standing and the action requested is something the court has jurisdiction over.


68 posted on 07/16/2009 10:14:25 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

“What if President Jindal orders forces into Korea and a soldier who didn’t him like sues over eligibility?”

If Jindal is not eligilble to become president, he should not run. We don’t need the head-ache.


70 posted on 07/16/2009 10:14:52 AM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
The courts are involved because Art II gives the requirements for eligibility. The Congress can neither change those requirements nor adjudicate them. As for Gov.Jindal,were Obama's eligibility to be challenged, then Gov. Jindal would be vetted prior to even his nomination.

I understand your allowing that Congress has a function of impeachment, but is eligibilty a high crime? I believe that the SCOTUS must be able to rule on Obama's eligibility for the office. Then it will be up to the Congress to address the matter if Obama is found ineligible.

88 posted on 07/16/2009 10:32:33 AM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
Perdogg said: "What if President Jindal orders forces into Korea and a soldier who didn't him like sues over eligibility? "

If the court permits the suit, then Jindal proves his eligibility, and the case is decided for the defense. Then the military court-martials the soldier for disobeying a lawful order and the soldier spends time in a military prison. Other soldiers will recognize the validity of Jindal's eligibility and will obey lawful orders.

What's the problem with that?

113 posted on 07/16/2009 11:17:03 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Exactly where in the Constitution are such suits prohibited?


119 posted on 07/16/2009 11:25:44 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Jindal would simply show his birth certificate before even running. Like any who is not a fraud would.


187 posted on 07/16/2009 7:33:49 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

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