Is Trump Working Eligibility Issue on Behalf of Democrats?

In whose interest is it for the usurper to be found out and removed from office in soon enough fashion for Joe Biden to become acting President? What is it that the democrats and liberals who have kept this subject alive lately think so important that they have stirred the pot? I think they realize that its over for their boy wonder and that with his removal, along goes those two Supreme Court appointments. The Republicans seem to have been biding their time in going after the issue so that when they finally would, the dems would not have enough time to save those two spots with fresh appointees BEFORE the wrath of the voters installed a new Republican President.

I think Donald Trump is acting on behalf of the Democrats interest as he is challenging Obama to produce his birth certificate. They realize how much is at stake on the Supreme Court alone and are trying their best to get rid of their impotent fraud so as to allow time to save those appointments for liberal justices. Trump is a Trojan horse in this case. Beware.

Wow..... there is a post by one I have missed for a while.

I have been calling Trump the designated birther for a while now. My thought was that he was designated by the Republicans. He seems to be running as a Republican. I’ve seen him on Cavuto several times and he seems more Republican than Democrat.

The concept of being designated by the Democrats to raise and harp on the issue requires some thought but is not to be rejected out of hand.

Any way, he is the designated birther and having no political credentials or current office to protect is untouchable

"but I remember hearing that it matters whether the person is considered a “de facto president”, because if the person ever meets the criteria for “de facto president” then the actions they took are legally binding just as if they were actually eligible for the job."

Lets take a little look at this from a different angle for a second.

The Fourteenth Amendment says we are all equal under the law.

" 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How would this "de facto" be treated in the case of a man accused of having sex with a minor who he assumed was of legal age? Everyone in the bar assumed that she was of legal age. She represented herself as such. The bartender facing charges of serving alcohol to a minor was fooled as well by her fake ID. Would "de facto" save these folks from being sent to jail? If "de facto" applies anywhere at all doesn't it have to apply everywhere to be considered an equally enforced legal concept?

There are hundreds of cases that have ruled out the "de facto" concept such as the one I have just described. Isn't this legal precedent for how "de facto" should be viewed in the case of a usurper?

Your thoughts?

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.