Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Your posts are so soaked in contempt for the man that they drip with mocking arrogance. When mired in the foul stench it becomes a normalcy.
If Obama was determined to be ineligible Keyes would have picked up some votes, which would have qualified him to appear on more ballots the next time he ran.
The reasoning used to deny him standing is that unless he could win the whole enchilada this time, he suffers no injury even if the whole electoral process is corrupted. That denies the right to equal protection and due process, but it’s also facially incorrect because Keyes DOES suffer real and tangible injury if his ability to get his name on ballots in the future is damaged by an ineligible candidate being allowed to run and/or win.
So your own investment that you made is being neutered by this whole farce of an electoral system.
How has every member of Congress legally recognized Obama as president?
Who handed the presidential powers to Obama and under what authority, considering that Congress never *legally* certified that he was the winner of the electoral vote?
>>> Everyone who doesn’t agree with YOU is corrupt. <<<
What? WHAT!? Seriously, WTF?
How do you go from “people don’t agree with me” to “they are corrupt”?
[I realize you posted this to edge919, but the gap in logic here is inexcusable.]
So is the implicit assertion that America’s government *ISN’T* corrupt.
I mean how can you say that with a straight face? I mean yeah it’s not quite as blatant as Mexico’s corruption BUT at least Mexico has both the decency and humility to realize that there _is_ a corruption problem. If everyone arrogantly asserts America’s non-corruption as you do then I must say all is already lost, America is no longer great and is ready to fall utterly and completely.
A single instance of American corruption: the GM/Chrystler takeover. IT was *not* legal on the face of it, nor did it follow the legally required interactions with their bondholders. Another instance: TARP. A third: Obamacare (”we have to pass it in order to find out what’s in it!”). A Fourth: Dodd-Frank “financial reform.”
“Who handed the presidential powers to Obama and under what authority, considering that Congress never *legally* certified that he was the winner of the electoral vote?”
That is just stupid! Congress DID certify the election. Sorry they didn’t say the words YOU wanted, but Congress has the right to handle it any way they wish.
And in case you missed it, Congress - EVERY MEMBER - considers Obama to be the legal President. And not one objected - which must be submitted to the VP in writing, so Cheney KNEW there were no objections, and no memb er has since risen up to say he/she wanted to object but wasn’t allowed to do so.
To pretend that Congress doesn’t fully accept the results of the Electoral College is not just fantasy, but it is lunacy.
“A lawful order cannot be contrary to the US Constitution or laws, and an order given by somebody the Constitution forbids to give orders would be “contrary to the Constitution”.
No. Not if the person is accepted as holding the office, and is exercising the powers of the office. The Constitution does not forbid Obama from signing laws and giving orders until someone presents EVIDENCE that Obama is ineligible, and Congress decides he isn’t qualified and removes him from office. Until then, Obama has the legal right to hold and use the office of the Presidency.
If I accuse my neighbors of tax evasion, even the IRS won’t open an examination without any evidence. And they won’t use the power of the government to force my neighbors to give me their records so I can determine if a crime has been committed. That is NOT how it works.
Nor will any court agree to force them to turn over their financial records to me for inspection based on my ‘feeling’ that they cheated.
And the courts will not force Obama to reveal his records based on accusations backed by...NOTHING.
“Please then explain WHY Hawaii’s DNC would NOT endorse his eligibility on their ballots for 2008???”
Then please tell me why no one in Hawaii seems concerned, including the Republicans...not even the Republican Gov. I guess it is just that enormous conspiracy. If you can get someone with STANDING in Hawaii - a DA, state election official, etc - to worry about it, I will. And the courts will pay attention then. But I don’t think the state gives a rat’s rear if it was Pelosi or some state party official, and you haven’t proven that no other letter from the state party was ever sent. In South Carolina, the same charges were made until someone produced a letter from the state party...
Where is this tidbit of international law codified? And are you arguing that international law trumps US law in regards to who is and isn't a US citizen?
>>So then you are arguing AGAINST the validity of international law?
>
>Where is this tidbit of international law codified? And are you arguing that international law trumps US law in regards to who is and isn’t a US citizen?
Well, I’m not really an international-law scholar; I’m looking to see if I can find the treaty which codified international adoptions (but I’m not good at such searchings).
The US Constitution, however, is clear on the matter of treaties:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Also, because Congress is involved in the acceptance of treaties AND because they are responsible for “establish[ing] an uniform Rule of Naturalization” then IF they signed onto such a treaty it would BE a part of law regarding the nationalization/nationality. Period.
Dude, this was YOUR point, suggesting that Obama could be impeached. I'm simply pointing out that he can't when his own party has helped protect him. The 'jury' in this case would not be impartial. Do you comprehend the words that I'm typing or are you going to keep going all Drama Queen here??
The fact that he was a minority party candidate doesn't minimize the claim. On the contrary, it would be an even more significant reason for a candidate to seek relief in the courts.
Good luck. What I can tell you is that in 2008 the US ratified the Hague Convention on International Adoption, which was written in 1993. According to at least one adoption-related source, this was the first such treaty. And it says nothing about citizenship, only that the receiving nation must have determined that the child " is or will be authorised to enter and reside permanently in that State."
Dude, this was YOUR point, suggesting that Obama could be impeached. I’m simply pointing out that he can’t when his own party has helped protect him. The ‘jury’ in this case would not be impartial. Do you comprehend the words that I’m typing or are you going to keep going all Drama Queen here??
The Constitution doesn't forbid the sitting President of the United States to give orders. In fact, the Constitution stipulates that the President shall be the Commander in Chief. That means he can give orders. Obama is the sitting President of the United States no matter how much we don't like him.
The Constitution stipulates that before entering upon the execution of his office, the President-elect shall take an oath and that oath is dictated word for word by the Constitution. Obama took that oath, twice, as it was administered by Chief Justice John Roberts. Therefore, Obama entered upon the execution of his office as the sitting President of the United States.
If he is later found to have been ineligible for the office, the Congress can impeach, convict and remove him from office or he can resign. Short of that, he is and remains the sitting President of the United States and all branches of our government are operating under that legal conclusion.
The virtual stomping of feet and temper tantrums by some insisting that Obama is not the sitting President don't do anything to advance the eligibility question. As jamese777 repeatedly points out, a grand jury can compel testimony and document production to investigate ANY potential crime about which they have personal knowledge, even if the District Attorney objects. Go present your evidence to a legally empaneled grand jury when they are in session. You can catch them on them outside the courthouse and hand them a prepared docum I ent explaining the highlights of your arguments. Better yet, apply to serve as a grand jury member. I did and I'm on the list waiting to be called.
The Constitution doesn't forbid the sitting President of the United States to give orders. In fact, the Constitution stipulates that the President shall be the Commander in Chief. That means he can give orders. Obama is the sitting President of the United States no matter how much we don't like him.
The Constitution stipulates that before entering upon the execution of his office, the President-elect shall take an oath and that oath is dictated word for word by the Constitution. Obama took that oath, twice, as it was administered by Chief Justice John Roberts. Therefore, Obama entered upon the execution of his office as the sitting President of the United States.
If he is later found to have been ineligible for the office, the Congress can impeach, convict and remove him from office or he can resign. Short of that, he is and remains the sitting President of the United States and all branches of our government are operating under that legal conclusion.
The virtual stomping of feet and temper tantrums by some insisting that Obama is not the sitting President don't do anything to advance the eligibility question. As jamese777 repeatedly points out, a grand jury can compel testimony and document production to investigate ANY potential crime about which they have personal knowledge, even if the District Attorney objects. Go present your evidence to a legally empaneled grand jury when they are in session. You can catch them on them outside the courthouse and hand them a prepared docum I ent explaining the highlights of your arguments. Better yet, apply to serve as a grand jury member. I did and I'm on the list waiting to be called.
Interesting how you keep moving the goalposts here, because earilier, you made it sound like it was easy, "A less dramatic answer is to impeach, convict and remove an illegitimate person occupying the office of the president."
It doesn't forbid a CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE POTUS from giving orders. You need to think this through before you post, chief.
“But the Judge in one of Keyes cases would not throw out the case on that basis...which is the same as acknowledging that he did have standing. Get the point now?”
The judge specifically REFUSED to rule he had standing. Or that he did not. The judge DID NOT MAKE A RULING on his ‘standing’.
Get the point now?
But the Constitution overrules any treaty we sign. That was the point of WKA - the treaty was invalid because WKA was born a citizen, per two clauses of the Constitution: the NBC clause, and the 14th Amendment. And no treaty could override that.
In like manner, if Obama was born in the USA, he cannot renounce his citizenship as a minor, and he cannot lose it based on foreign laws or treaties. Just as WKA could not.
If you had checked the dates on the various documents you wouldn't have posted these documents, which in page 2, where it all started was dated August 27, 2008 and that Hawaii could NOT confirm your dear Fuehrer's constitutionality to be on their ballots, so they needed Nazy's "voice" to cover their backs legally, LOL!!
It does not come as a surprise when posted by a paid DOJ Holder's Benedict Arnold brigade. You must really be proud that you got an illegal alien in office who now is tearing the United States of America apart from within!!!
Who was the first page addressed to, and did you ever hear about Gilardy, the attorney???
See Perkins v Elg.
“Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.
In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that, if she returned after attaining majority, she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499682/posts
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html#328
In the decision, they also cite this:
“Under the treaty, and in harmony with the American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler, the father, abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor) and that, by virtue of German laws, the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. . . . There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.”
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.