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

To: etraveler13; dools007

Great thread! Thank you. This issue needs to be presented to the the public on a daily basis.

“(Cheney), did NOT solicit objections from the senate, Per the Rules and Procedures he is required to follow...”

That is a correct statement, but allow me to put a sharper point on it: Cheney was required by 3 USC 15 to call for objections. So the questions are whether the Congress should be allowed to ignore its own statutes - Americans would think not - and whether the USSC, if asked, should render an opinion if Congress does so ignore - Americans who believe in the concept of checks and balances would certainly hope so.

Unfortunately, for our families and our nation’s history, all of the politicians, the lawyers and former judges in the Congress who 1) had full knowledge that O’s father was not a U.S. citizen, 2) were aware of the numerous eligibility lawsuits and 3) had received numerous inquiries as to whether O was even a U.S. citizen, sat on their hands when it was time to raise the point on Jan 8, 2009.

The USSC, who we would go to for relief, and who had knowledge of the 3 points above nonetheless sanctioned the breach of law by Congress by swearing in the new “President” on Jan 20, 2009.


73 posted on 03/14/2010 1:53:58 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Wake up America! There is presently a war at home against you and your Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: frog in a pot
Fait accompli is a French phrase which means literally "an accomplished fact". Commonly used to describe an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it.

We've been fait'ed, damn those French!

77 posted on 03/14/2010 2:01:39 PM PDT by Huebolt (Democrat = (national socialist) = NAZI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: frog in a pot

Thank you for this contribution of this information to our dialogue.


82 posted on 03/14/2010 2:10:55 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: frog in a pot

You’re describing the grossest negligence and complicity with fraud.


132 posted on 03/14/2010 5:37:21 PM PDT by walkthewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: frog in a pot
The USSC, who we would go to for relief, and who had knowledge of the 3 points above nonetheless sanctioned the breach of law by Congress by swearing in the new “President” on Jan 20, 2009.

The Chief Justice doesn't really "swear in" the President. Traditionally he administers the oath of office, but that is only tradition. The oath could be taken in writing, and it could be administered orally by someone other than a Supreme Court justice, and that has been the case for many such oath takings. He could even take the oath anytime after the electoral college vote and before Jan. 20th at noon. Then and only the does someone become President. That is, after satisfying all the requirements, of which taking the oath is only one. The others being getting the majority of the electoral votes, being 35 or over, having been 14 years a resident of the US, and being a Natural Born Citizen. Fail at any of those, and you are not President.

242 posted on 03/14/2010 11:38:36 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

To: frog in a pot

Each and every one who didn’t object should be (gently) tarred and feathered.


275 posted on 03/15/2010 7:39:35 AM PDT by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | 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