Posted on 03/25/2010 12:45:04 PM PDT by conservativesister
I've searched FR, googled, and wicki-ed, the only thing I can find about removing a president is :
The House of Representatives has the power to bring articles of impeachment against a president. If articles are brought, then the president is considered impeached (but not guilty). A simple majority of the vote is sufficient to bring articles of impeachment.
Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution indicates reasons removal from office. "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."
Obviously, The House isn't going to listen to the people, my question is what rights do the people have for recall (like Gov. Davis) or removal of the President?
see #150. I like it.
“And that’s about it...”
You conveniently left out a political action that could produce results in less than 12 months.
A Republican-controlled Congress could move to correct the violation of statute that occurred during the Jan 9, 2009 session of the Joint Committee called solely for the purpose of considering and accepting, or denying, the Electoral College’s certifications.
The violation occurred when the chair failed to call for Objections to any certifications, (“the...SHALL CALL for objections”)(emphasis added).
It is irrelevant that the chair was a Republican; further, nothing occurred at that session that could, or did, waive that violation.
The correction could occur via a Congressional Subcommittee charged with correcting the violation by receiving Objections to the Electoral College’s certifications.
In anticipation of objections based on the lack of constitutional eligibility, the Subcommittee would be empowered to 1) subpoena birth documents and 2) apply to the USSC for an opinion as to whether the term NBC requires two US citizen parentage.
You are correct that only Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President. Congress can do that by Impeachment. But Congress cannot remove a usurper by impeachment.
The power or authority to remove an usurper from the White House, via Quo Warranto, was delegated by Congress to the District Court, Washington, D.C.
To sue the President of the United States via Quo Warranto one must have standing. But the thing about Quo Warranto is that the President must PROVE he/she is eligible to be President.
You are correct that only Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting President. Congress can do that by Impeachment. But Congress cannot remove a usurper by impeachment.
The power or authority to remove an usurper from the White House, via Quo Warranto, was delegated by Congress to the District Court, Washington, D.C.
To sue the President of the United States via Quo Warranto one must have standing. But the thing about Quo Warranto is that the President must PROVE he/she is eligible to be President.
The best way to resolve the birth certificate issue is via a subpoena for his original birth records to be examined before a Grand Jury.
I hope it remains alive, too. I can’t believe so many people aren’t taking the eligibility issue seriously. It is a gravely serious issue.
The reason I brought up the recent weirdness of Hawai’i’s apparent urgency to bid on a place for BO’s “presidential” library is that this state (not Illinois, not Massachusetts) seems to be VERY anxious all of a sudden to provide him with additional “cover” to the end of leading people to believe he was born there.
The fire story is bunkus.
You know... all this stuff may be true and then again it may not be. What I do know, though, is that if it is true, it’s going to take some proof that courts will accept and it’s going to take a case.
Now, I’ve said all along that I don’t think this stuff is going anywhere, but that we needed a state law to require candidates to show a birth certificate. That’s my solution and has been for a long time.
And so far, it’s just as I said, that the legal cases are going nowhere and nothing is being accomplished by that route.
I just think that we would never be in the mess in the first place, you see, if we conservatives had more political pull and power. I mean, Obama should have never been elected, “politically” (and having nothing to do with legal issues).
That’s what will succeed in the long run, is if conservatives start getting power politically, and can win elections consistently, and over the long term, by having more conservatives than we see today.
I know there are a number of posters here who wouldn’t think of this stuff (that we’re discussing) as “nit-picky” — but I sorta do, because if we can’t win elections politically, none of this legal stuff really means anything in the long run. We’ll just keep getting outvoted consistently until we even get outvoted in changing the Constitution, itself by amending certain parts out of existence.
Political power at the voting booth is where it’s at... long term.
That doesn’t mean that you have to do the same.
The trouble is, I would do the same for anyone in our system of justice in that I'm not going to say that they are guilty and I will wait until all information comes out in a court case and that a jury of a person's peers is convened to hear it all (or sometimes it's a judge...) and make that determination of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"...
You see..., I already know enough "politically" to not vote for Obama (and I didn't as I voted for the GOP ticket). So, I don't need any legal decisions or court hearings and/or trials to help me there. I made up my mind a long time before the election on Obama, politically speaking.
BUT, in all cases (no matter who it is, no matter what the accusations), I'm never going to make up my mind, in that I'm going to assert positively, that someone is guilty, legally speaking, until there is due process completed. And in this case, there's not.
When a court case comes out and someone is pronounced guilty of a specific charge and it's a final decision -- then that's when I'll know.
But, as I said, I don't even need that to know how to vote...
And as far as I can see, it's the "voting" and the "political process" that is the key -- and not the various legal processes that people want to see going on.
I hope this issue remains alive far as long as it takes for Americans to realize how important it is to know the person they are putting in Washington is egible to be there.
Well, I'm hoping for something a bit more tangible than that -- and what I would call much more simple.
I'm simply hoping for a state law making it a requirement that all candidates must show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state.
That's all I could ever ask for... to put an end to this birth certificate issue.
That's (1) real simple and (2) very tangible...
Barry O. tried to pass of something that was inconsistent with what the rest of have and know to be a “Birth Certificate”.
The so called COLB has many flaws with it:
The best part and even more confusing is why he didn't release any of the three Birth Certificates we know already existed before 2007.
Those were most certainly BC’s and not a COLB. There is no reason to create confusion but, for the fact he is hiding something. That something will be discovered, though and this is a long process. “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.” From “Dreams From My Father” (Pg. 26 last paragraph) So with all these Birth Certificates lying around, why did he feel it necessary to produce a "Certification of Live Birth" that is inconsistent with a Birth Certificate and wholly lacking all of the information you would find, in you know, a Birth Certificate? He seemed to have some emotional attachment to the Birth Certificate found among his mother’s belongings. Why wouldn’t he just slap that one up, for all the world to see? It seemed important that he found a document that is called a “Birth Certificate” and it is highly unlikely he would not know what one looks like.
Hope no one brings up some house fire that vaporized his BC. That was in 1972 and none of the documents listed here would have been affected by that “fishy” event.
First we have to start WINNING elections. Maybe that it is something George W. Bush never quite figured out.
The "real key" to this whole thing is the political process and not the legal process.
If we were winning elections, then there would be no problems in hassling over these legal issues.
Maybe so, but we are on thin ice and anything could happen. 42% of the Dems do not like obamacare.
You conveniently left out a political action that could produce results in less than 12 months.
A Republican-controlled Congress could move to correct the violation of statute that occurred during the Jan 9, 2009 session of the Joint Committee called solely for the purpose of considering and accepting, or denying, the Electoral College’s certifications.
I don't think I conveniently left it out; I don't think that such a thing is a remote possibility.
In other words, it would be like saying to me (about another subject), "You've conveniently left out the possibility that the sun might skip a day in rising this week."
I would say, "No, it' ain't ever gonna happen!" ... LOL ... And I would say the same thing about that... :-)
The violation occurred when the chair failed to call for Objections to any certifications, (“the...SHALL CALL for objections”)(emphasis added).
It is irrelevant that the chair was a Republican; further, nothing occurred at that session that could, or did, waive that violation.
Well, you'll note that no objections will be received that are not in writing and that are not received ahead of time.
Thus, by the time you get to the actual session, and nothing is in writing and nothing has been received ahead of time -- there is absolutely nothing which could be submitted at the time of the session, which would be allowed.
Therefore, it wasn't called because nothing could qualify, per those requirements, "at that time of the session".
And that's why you'll never see this happening, because it's easily verified and proven that nothing was submitted in writing ahead of time.
Do you believe them? Or are you residing in an alternate universe? =)
No, I live in the universe where -- if it ever comes to a judge asking for the "certified copy" that this very same department is the one who is going to print up that certified copy... if you see what I mean... :-) ...
Sorry, you are wrong. Taking over a private business by the government is unlawful in this country.
Ummm..., when something illegal happens, what goes on next is someone is charged with a violation of the law and then a court case happens, and then someone gets convicted.
Can you tell me when this is going to be happening? I was hoping it wasn't going to wait until after I was dead or something, ya know... :-)
Take this for what it’s worth, but I’ve got a strong gut feeling that Obama is going to exit the same way Nixon did.
Beats me what the exact scandal might be. There are so many possibilities, starting with his birth certificate. Now don’t flame me as a “birther,” I’m merely open to the possibility there may be something bogus about his citizenship status.
More than likely, Obama’s downfall will come over something we haven’t seen yet. I just hope to God it’s not an attack on this country.
Yes, a lot of Americans acted foolishly by giving power to Emperor Bozo the Usurper and his sycophants.
For my part, I’m tired of blaming the old wishy-washy GOP Congress or all the conservative purists who stayed home in 2006 and 2008.
As we gradually realize that we are in a Cold Civil War against the Left, conservatives need to overlook past differences and focus on where the real source of evil in our society lies.
Considering that the Emperor doesn’t seem to have any moral values other than love of himself, I thought it appropriate to get familiar with the concept of “imprecatory prayer.”
This is basically a passionate and sincere cry to the Lord to stop evil. It is a plea for stern Old Testament justice to be brought upon one’s persecutors.
Psalm 35 is a an excellent, if long, example. But in our Emperor’s case, one might consider simply extemporizing something like “Dear Lord, put a stop to this monster before he really starts hurting people.”
I’ve struggled with my Catholic faith for nearly 53 years, and one constant problem I have is this milquetoast hope that wrongdoers might have a change of heart if we all only prayed hard enough. Right, if we only prayed hard enough, Ahmedinutjob will stop calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
I still go to mass and mumble the usual prayers for mercy. Then I add a few of my own — for justice.
Yet, Obama did show one, only it's been exposed as questionable if not outright fraudulent.
It's only required that a candidate swear and signed (with a notary) that they are (1) at least 35 years old (2) they have been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and that they are (3) a natural born U.S. citizen.
Unfortunately this is undermined by the presentation of a fraudulent birth certificate. Attesting to something you know isn't true would be a crime, no??
Well, it's clear what he used. He used a birth certificate because that was what was required of him and everyone else.
Well, no it's not clear that he used a birth certificate. He may have used a consular report of birth abroad or any other secondary identification documents. Obama doesn't need to have a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate in order to get a passport. So the question remains, what did he use??
And likewise, he signed a statement with a notary present to become a candidate and run for President of the United States, because that was what required of him and everyone else.
A notary ensures the signature belongs to the person. It doesn't ensure that the affirmation was honest.
The COLB is the default birth record you get when you order one. By law, the HI DOH has to provide any copy of any certificate if you specifically request your original, long-form certificate.
Yet, Obama did show one, only it's been exposed as questionable if not outright fraudulent.
The only point to the fact that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to produce his birth certificate -- is -- you're not going to get a court to order a candidate to show one, because he was a candidate.
If someone wants to voluntarily show any particular document... it's totally up to them. And apparently Obama wanted to show that one -- which is fine, if he wanted to do that.
The issue, however, is that no one can force a candidate, by law, to show any kind of birth certificate (as a requirement of being a candidate), if they don't want to. And you're not going to make Obama do it either (as very well evidenced prior to the election and especially now, after the election).
Unfortunately this is undermined by the presentation of a fraudulent birth certificate. Attesting to something you know isn't true would be a crime, no??
I personally never did pay any attention to that document. It wasn't relevant to me. But, I know a lot of other people did pay a lot of attention to it. It simply didn't make any difference to me, because I already knew by then that a candidate was not legally required to produce a birth certificate.
But, having said that -- I don't know that it's fraudulent. I see a lot of people speculating that it's fraudulent, but I don't see anyone having proved it in a court of law -- which would be one place I would be willing to accept a statement from.
The other place I would be willing to accept a statement from, is an official pronouncement from the State of Hawaii about Obama being born there, which they did.
So, those are the two places, that I would be willing to hear statements from -- a court and the state that has the original documents and also produces the "certified copy". And since I did hear from the State of Hawaii, that pretty much wraps it up for me as far as Obama being born in the United States.
Well, no it's not clear that he used a birth certificate. He may have used a consular report of birth abroad or any other secondary identification documents. Obama doesn't need to have a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate in order to get a passport. So the question remains, what did he use??
Well, it's clear to me, that whatever requirements that the State Department has, for getting a passport, then Obama had to meet the requirements. I answered in that post, the "fact" (which was given up above) that the State Deparment required a birth certificate. I said, that this being the requirement, then Obama would have had to have a birth certificate to get the passport.
But, you're saying that someone can get a passport without a birth certificate. If that's so -- then fine... you don't have to have a birth certificate... that's all I'm saying.
It's either the State Department requires a birth certificate -- or -- the State Department does not require a birth certificate. It really doesn't matter to me which way it is -- because whichever way it is (i.e., "whatever" their requirements are) -- that's what Obama would have had to do, in order to get the passport.
A notary ensures the signature belongs to the person. It doesn't ensure that the affirmation was honest.
I was describing the process that the candidates had to go through. The only significance of that -- is -- Obama did the same thing that the other candidates did. Nothing more than that is relevant.
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.