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?
If circumstantial evidence counts for nothing, then this nation is lost.
I don’t buy what you’re saying.
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.
The problem is that (1) officials of the state of Hawaii have verified his birth there.
http://spotlight.vitals.com/2009/07/dr-chiyome-fukino-confirms-president-obamas-natural-citizenship/
(2) The Attorney General of Hawaii could subpoena Obama’s original birth records but he hasn’t do so even though the Attorney General is a Republican.
(3) The Governor of Hawaii, also a Republican has repeatedly referred to Hawaii as “Obama’s birthplace.”
Her recent exact quote was: “This is a competitive state for us – we’re in Obama’s birthplace. This is his backyard! I wanted to make sure that everyone across the country knew that this party was going to compete on every inch of soil of this nation. Whether it’s Illinois or Hawaii, we’re going to beat you.”
http://www.frumforum.com/hawaiis-gop-resurgence
(4) The US Supreme Court has thus far rejected all seven lawsuits on Obama’s eligibility. They have refused to hear any of those cases. The strongest one was the first: Berg v Obama.
“Well, you’ll note that no objections will be received…that are not received ahead of time…there is absolutely nothing which could be submitted at the time of the session, which would be allowed…(t)herefore, it wasn’t called because nothing could qualify, per those requirements.”
Please point to language in 3 USC 15 or otherwise provide statutory authority for the pre-session writings you refer to and we can put this issue to rest.
IMO, the statute only provides for written objections in response to the chair’s call; this not only for the record, but primarily because any objections are to be considered separately in each chamber
A pre-session filing of writings would preclude the necessity of the statutory “call”, the chair could simply announce it had received objections.
Your contention is the members are required to submit written objections in advance of the presentation of Certificates to the Congress. Can you point to the manner of the submission and the by “no later than” provisions for such procedure?
“I don’t think I conveniently left it out…”
My use of the word “conveniently” is apropos given that a workable political solution could do damage to the pro-Obama viewpoint contained in your many posts.
LOL, thanks for your response but I am pretty much aware of all your points and they are all correct and I don’t seriously expect this to be heard. EVER
Still, it is my little conspiracy.
LOL, thanks for your response but I am pretty much aware of all your points and they are all correct and I don’t seriously expect this to be heard. EVER
Still, it is my little conspiracy.
If obama is finally forced to release his birth records and we have proof that he is in violation of Article 2( required that both parents be U.S. citizens) . It would then require Congress to void his election. FAT CHANCE!!!
Well, let me point out that the problem here, as you are pointing to right now (i.e., the violation that you say is pertinent) -- is not something that requires showing the birth certificate -- because Obama has already told you (and it's also very well known and common knowledge) who Obama's father and mother are.
You've got all that information -- and -- the American public had all that information before the election.
HOWEVER, even having that information about Obama's father and mother, before the election (and very common knowledge) -- did not stop the 10 million more voters casting their votes for Obama than the GOP ticket received.
In other words, that particular information, which you say is related to a legal violation and disqualifies Obama, had absolutely no effect on the voting public and getting him elected.
SO... that's the "political side" of this issue ... and there was no need to release any birth certificate in order to know this... Obama, himself, made this known very clearly.
BUT, having said that, there is a "legal side" to this issue. I was just speaking to the "political side" up above. Now, here the "legal side" of it.
[I should make a parenthetical note here and say that this whole "birther issue" is actually two different issues. They are (1) getting the birth certificate shown, primarily for information on where he was born, and (2) the issue on whether the citizenship of the parents' bears on the "natural born status" of the candidate (i.e., Obama, in this case). And right here, when I say the "legal side," I'm talking about #2, here, right at the moment.]
And, in regards to the legal side of the issue -- we find it is in dispute. There are legal people on both sides of this issue, one saying that being natural born doesn't have to do with the parents' citizenship and the other saying it does have to do with the parents' citizenship.
And it's clear that you're asserting one side of the legal side -- of this "natural born" issue -- in saying that it legally does matter what the parents' citizenship is.
On the other hand, you'll have others who will argue, legally speaking, that it doesn't matter, in regards to being natural born. And I'm sure you've seen them both argued here, and it's not limited to just this forum that it's argued, but also "outside" in "legal circles" too.
Now, when you have a legal issue in which there are two sides, opposing one another, it never gets resolved -- until -- a court of law hears a case with this being the issue being decided, and the court renders a legal judgment on it. And many times, with these kinds of matters, it requires the Supreme Court to make a determination on it -- to finally end all legal appeals to the matter.
THEREFORE, in this particular legal issue (having to do with the natural born status of a candidate) -- it is going to require that the Supreme Court render a decision, on this particular case (having to do with Obama) to put an end to all legal appeals on the matter.
What that means, is for right now, it's not possible for anyone (on either side of this particular issue) to have an authoritative position on this matter -- since there has not been any kind of Supreme Court decision on this matter with Obama (and, like I said, considering the fact that this is legally in dispute).
You, and others (namely both sides of the issue) will have to wait until a Supreme Court decision comes down on the matter.
In the meantime, all you've got going (both sides) is a continuing legal argument that is never solved (which I see plenty of here on Free Republic, regarding this issue... LOL ...).
It would then require Congress to void his election. FAT CHANCE!!!
And zeroing in on this particular part ... you'll note that this is the procedure that the founding fathers gave us.
Also, there's an "understanding" here that I see that many seem to miss in this procedure (and many times people miss it in normal everyday life, too).
What is missed, many times in ordinary life, is that whom we see as a criminal (because of how we've been presented with the information and how we've decided ourselves) -- many times we're operating, already, under the presumption of guilt. BUT, that's not our system, in this country.
Someone is not actually "guilty" (if at all) until the legal/judicial system renders that kind of judgment, at the end. Now, many people simply conclude in their own minds that someone is guilty and they seemingly "act upon their own decisions" and presume that "guilt". But, our system clearly insists that all are presumed innocent, until such a judgment is rendered in which they are pronounced "guilty" (or "not guilty" of course). At that point in time at which they are pronounced one way or the other -- it's precisely at that particular time that legally, they are guilty.
BUT, furthermore, you (and others) don't know what the legal/judicial system is going to come up with, in the way of a judgment, so it could be "not guilty" too and thus, that person could be considered completely innocent as a consequence of that particular judgment.
Since you or anyone else does not know what the legal judgment is, ahead of time, it's impossible to say that someone is guilty ahead of time.
NOW..., how that applies to Obama, is that the Congress was given the duty of conducting this sort of "trial" for Presidents. Remember, it's not possible to know the "verdict" ahead of time -- and we all have the presumption of innocence, legally speaking, and no one can be deprived of any of their legal rights without that kind of legal due process taking place.
SO..., Congress is the one who is assigned that task of doing that particular kind of "legal duty" with the President of the United States -- and since we can't know the verdict ahead of time, we know -- without a doubt -- that a President is still the President, all the way through such a trial in Congress.
We can use President Clinton for an example. He was "impeached" by the House of Representatives, which was their part of the duty assigned to them. And then the Senates is like the jury, who renders the verdict. President Clinton remained President, because like any other citizen in this country, he is presumed innocent in our system of justice until a judgment is rendered, at which time we know whether it's "guilty" or "not guilty".
And all the way up to the very last seconds of the verdict by the "jury" (which was the Senate) President Clinton remained President all the while, because he was President as no verdict had been delivered. When the verdict was delivered, it was "not guilty" and thus -- President Clinton remained President, as a result of that verdict, in addition to his presumption of innocence, in our system.
The same thing applies to President Obama. Until such a time as a verdict is devliered, any person (President or not) is always given, in our system of justice, the presumption of innocence, and until a verdict is delivered by Congress (i.e., the Senate), President Obama will remain President, and depending on the verdict, he would remain President after the verdict, or not.
So, President Obama is the President right now and until such a time that a verdict is delivered by Congress (i.e., the Senate) that the President is guilty of crimes justifying removal from office (not all crimes are... by the way) -- President Obama remains President as he has been since the inauguration.
Basically when people say that someone doesn't have to be removed from the Presidential office, if he is not qualified -- is that they presume that there will be a "Guilty" verdict (somehow knowing this ahead of time) -- when there is absolutely no way to know this ahead of time.
That's their fatal mistake in making some kind of "legal case" to remove a President some other way, by presumption, ahead of time, that he is guilty... you see. And that's why no court will ever do that, because our entire system is based upon knowing that a person is innocent until judged "guilty" (if that happens at all, which it may not).
We don't want another president to sneak in using fake documents.
Well, since no candidate is required to use any kind of birth certificate, that can't be the document you're talking about. The only other kinds of documents that you could be talking about -- are the ones in which Obama certifies, by way of a signed, sworn statement, saying that he meets the qualifictions required by the Constitution -- in that he is (1) at least 35 years old, (2) has lived in the United States at least 14 years, and (3) is a natural born citizen.
And he did sign and swear to that very thing... so I don't see that he became either a candidate or President (in terms of the qualfications per the Constitution) by any fake documents. The only documents that he had to produce were the same ones that all other candidates in the past have produced -- and they are all real and verifable, and certainly not fake.
BUT, in saying the above..., if you're saying that he didn't have to produce a birth certificate, you're right. And neither did any other candidate find themselves legally required to produce one either. And in the past none of the candidates have been legally required to produce a birth certificate in order to be a candidate or President -- only the certification that they swear and sign have been required (of all candidates in the past).
Therefore, if the problem you and others have -- is -- "getting the birth certificate" -- there is the solution that I've advocated all along, from right after the election, which is to have various states enact legislation that makes it legally required for a candidate to produce a birth certificate, or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state.
That solves the problem of "showing a birth certificate" if that is the problem that you want to solve.
NOW..., I'll address another part to this whole issue I see coming up over and over again. It's that Obama has not produced various documents that people want to see.
The only one I deal with in "this particular issue" of "Constitutional qualifications" -- is the birth certificate. I've already addressed that above.
So, the other documents are not "Constitutional issues" of qualification per those three requirements -- and it's most clear that they are definitely "not legally required" either. A candidate can produce them, if he wants, or he doesn't have to.
This is where the "political process" comes into play. Getting a candidate to release certain information that the public wants to see, but he is not legally compelled to release it -- is purely a political matter. And the voting public can make their "opinion heard" on this matter -- in one way. That's by what they do in the voting booth on election day. That's where citizens register their "complaint" against a candidate if he did not clarify something that they wanted to see... they simply vote against him.
I don't get into those matters of all those other papers and documents that Obama did not release, because basically I did not have to see even on shred of paper to determine how I was going to vote -- and I sure didn't vote for him.
He could have produced every last single piece of paperwork for me, that ever existed in his life, and it would not have ever gotten me to vote for him... :-) But, as I said, this was a "political matter"...
How would that prove Obama is lying?? What exactly did he say??
The infamous Janice Okubo of the Hawaii Department of Health is still saying that the short form COLB IS the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since they went paperless in 2001.
If Obama was born after 2001, that would mean something.
Please point to language in 3 USC 15 or otherwise provide statutory authority for the pre-session writings you refer to and we can put this issue to rest.
Well, it's been posted here several times on Free Republic, so I'll have to go and find it. I would have thought that this was well-known by now... considering how much some talk about it... LOL...
I'll post back here when I find it... :-)
My use of the word “conveniently” is apropos given that a workable political solution could do damage to the pro-Obama viewpoint contained in your many posts.
Well, if I were pro-Obama, then I would have voted for him, doncha know... LOL ...
But, as you'll see in many of my posts, and also before the election, I didn't have to know anything about a birth certificate or anything about other documents that many say that they want to see -- for me to know that I wasn't ever going to vote for him.
So, these documents didn't mean too much to me, personally. However, I do realize that getting a birth certificate is important to our system of electing various candidates -- and thus, that's why I've always proposed getting the states to enact legislation making it mandatory that candidates produce their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state.
BUT, all that aside (the documents, the birth certificate and me voting for the GOP ticket) -- what you see here, that you want to present as "pro-Obama" (by your statement) is nothing more than getting down to the core issues of what is going on with Obama and the birth certificate issue -- and then -- after knowing that, getting the solution that presents itself from the understanding of what happened.
From the understanding that I've presented here -- there are two solutions which immediately present themselves -- as a direct result of that understanding of what is happening.
(1) One solution is in regards to the birth certificate, and that's getting the state law that I advocate, up above.
(2) The other solution is in regards to the "natural born status" and that's getting a Supreme Court decision on the matter.
Those two solutions presents themselves, almost automatically, and almost without saying, just by understanding what is happening.
And with #1 and #2 -- that's how you solve the entire mess... you see...
Like I’ve said in the past, I want his Long Form Birth Certificates, his college admissions records, how he obtained financing for college and his travel records.
We will never see them.
With all of his life sealed under lock and key, going to make for an interesting Library or LIE-Barry.
The biggest problem with the Obama eligibility issues, from a legal standpoint, is that of proving that one has legal standing to sue in a civil court. You have to show unique injury or harm done to you by the person you are suing. The most obvious persons to sue would be Hillary Clinton or John McCain, since Obama’s lack of eligibility kept them from having a fair election. The next most obvious person is whoever the true owner is of the certificate number Obama used on his fraudulent COLB: 151 1961 010641. Instead of running full page ads in the newspapers about Obama’s lack of eligibility, that money could be spent in Hawaii searching for the true owner of that number. They could ask for the owner of the certificate number to step forward and sue Obama for identity theft or to ask for a criminal investigation. I believe the owner of this number is listed in the Aug. 16, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser.
I got in trouble around here by suggesting Clinton could use the Little Rock public Library by simply removing the "l"
I think I’ve shown pretty clearly through the documentation on my blog that all the Hawaiian officials have balked at obeying their own laws.
Regarding the “Vexatious Requestor” Bill - which would have effectively nullified their open records law - there was ONE (count ‘em, ONE) law-maker who voted to uphold the current open records law.
One of the OIP Attorneys put a short line in a response to John Charlton saying that even if disclosure is required by Hawaii law, records can legally be withheld if FEDERAL FUNDING would be jeopardized. I have a suspicion that there’s some fine print somewhere that factors in here. Possibly the executive order Obama signed for an initiative to improve prospects for Pacific Islanders including native Hawaiians. I believe he signed that shortly after Fukino made her carefully-crafted statement saying they have a piece of paper somewhere in their office that claims Obama was born in Hawaii.
AG Mark Bennett is a big part of the problem. His office is claiming now that the proof of Obama being born in Hawaii is the existence of his name on the DOH birth index. When asked if the birth index only includes people who were born in Hawaii, the office responded that they weren’t saying that and they are done answering any questions from the person who asked the question.
That’s the Republican Hawaiian leadership...
Part of the reason I believe that the courts have been unwilling to investigate this with the full force is they are afraid of domestic “unrest”.
There will always be those that will refuse to accept that Barry is ineligible (denying the incontrovertible proof) and start rioting. Others will want to amend the constitution to remove the natural born citizen requirement, and on and on.
So it if the courts have a fear of domestic unrest then they are not going to force an investigation of the executive branch without a blazing forest fire of evidence.
Sad, but that’s the way things are for now. You know...acceptance, change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
“I’ll post back here when I find it... :-) “
Thank you.
Interestingly, your two solutions that “immediately present themselves” involve long drawn-out efforts that do not timely address what our nation is facing.
Any state that requires candidates to certify eligibility under oath already has the means by which to examine that certification and take legal action. But, since the states appear to need more spine, I applaud new statutes in that regard.
The political composition of future USSC’s could make the NBC question difficult; which is why I adocate presenting the issue to this court and given the socialist tsunami it is obvious sooner is better.
ST: I would like to be wrong about you!
regards,
I believe the way this will be solved is through a criminal investigation of the cover-up, since crimes have been committed in the process of Obama trying to produce what he could claim was a legitimate historical record rather than simply producing the authentic records.
I don’t think the person whose certificate number was falsely used is able or willing to sue.
That’s pretty dispicable. I notice there’s a pattern of refusal to answer questions over there. Would really be beneficial if someone would go into the office on Punchbowl Street and ask to look at the birth index. I’m curious what information is on it ... if it looks like it’s been updated recently and how it’s organized ... whether it’s by name or date of birth, etc.
My guess is that the person is deceased already. But, if an ad was put in the paper asking for the person owning the number, it would get a lot of people looking at their certificates and perhaps help piece together enough tangible information to turn public opinion toward demanding the truth. I'm willing to bet you could find the person's name following three spots after the Nordyke listing in the Aug. 16, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser. Once a name gets out of a true owner, all hell could break loose.
Whoever told the youths to riot in Pennsylvania has the whole nation hostage, eh?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t like being held hostage. And I don’t think anybody would riot if the forgers at FActcheck were hauled in. That would give people some time to see the writing on the wall.
Right now I don’t know if there are people willing to riot on Obama’s behalf at all - aside from Soros’ minions who are available to riot on call even without a supposed “reason”. But I do know there are a lot of people who are not happy with Obama at all, and they are willing to come out in large numbers if they think enough is at stake.
But thanks for clarifying what you meant by saying we need more evidence. In this political climate and dealing with this particular case we need more evidence - not in normal operating procedures. Am I understanding what you’re saying?
They only allow people to see a computerized, alphabetical list of people born within a 5-year span at a time. It lists the name and the gender. A person has to sign in to see it and they don’t allow the public to make copies of it.
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.