Posted on 04/09/2011 4:52:18 AM PDT by library user
Imagine it's 2012 or 2013 and it's proven 100% that O is not a NBC.
Any retroactive ramifications from this?
Sorry if a stupid question.
Just wondering what others are thinking.
So I can impersonate a doctor and the prescriptions will be valid?
No, but the pharmacist who fills them can't be punished, and the drugs you take are real.
There will be a segment of the public, along with conservatives, who will demand that the right thing be done. There will be a big segment who will NOT want to admit they made a mistake, no matter how horrendous, and will go along with the Dems. Then there will be the Dems.
In the impeachment battle, I saw the same thing: many on our side thought that all they had to do was present the evidence to the senators and they would do the right thing. Well, we saw how that worked out, didn't we? NOT ONE DEM looked at the evidence. I'm just trying to alert everyone that this will be no different. If he is proven a fraud, and IF someone has the cajones to actually get this in front of a court or bring an impeachment, it will make the Clinton fight look like the Partridge Family.
So WHEN we do it, we need to have thought through exactly how we will deal with the appointees, the laws, and everything else. And, yes, our side is grossly ignorant of what will come next.
Thank you. Interesting.
Which, for the most part, they do.
Failing to ensure that the Twentieth amendment, section three was complied with makes them part of the reason why we have a usurpation. Ignoring the Constitution is not supporting it.
Each Federal officer is not a mini-Constitutional Convention or mini-Supreme Court. Officers of the United States who have taken the oath are entitled, in my view, to rely on the actions of the Special Joint Session of Congress, convened on January 6, 2009 to hear objections to the actions of the Electors. No objections were heard, although most birther theories were well-known at the time, and the certificate of election was signed by Richard Cheney of Wyoming.
So, although Members of Congress and Vice-President Cheney may have been mistaken, no sworn officers who relied on their actions are guilty of failing to uphold the Constitution.
I have discussed this with a number of officers who hold the President's commission, and they are universally of this view. They furthermore believe that, once the Secretary of Defense was confirmed by the Senate, that orders transmitted through him are presumptively legal.
Of course he COULD be. He could be impeached tomorrow.
It is not constructive to dwell on that extremely unlikely event, however. If every single birther theory were proven true, published on page one of the New York Times, and announced by Dan Rather on a CBS news special, there aren't ten Senators that would vote to convict.
The US Constitution, and the US Code written pursuant to it, do not define the term "natural born citizen".
Birthers like to repeat the definition of Vattel, which was surely known to Madison and the others, but repetition is not precedent.
Most Americans who voted on November 2, 2008 believed, rightly or wrongly, that NBC meant "born here". That belief was widespread as long ago as 1968 when George Romney (born in Mexico) was a candidate for the Republican nomination, and presumably before.
A court decision to change the effect of 69 million votes, after the fact, wouldn't happen and probably shouldn't happen.
I applaud efforts to define NBC in the US Code, but that will not occur while "Obama", whatever his real name is, is in office.
So, 0bama/Reid/Pelosi and the RINOs cause the country to collapse due to it debt, on orders from Soros via Erskine Bowles.
Or, 0bama/Pelosi/SCOTUS and the Democrats, and all electors who certified 0bama as POTUS, cause the country to come to a standstill via a Constitutional crisis, due to fraudulently, willingly and knowingly authorizing a fraudulent candidate, AKA 0bama, to become POTUS in the first place and enact laws, regulations and international agreements on behalf of the United States of America.
“Your money or your life.”
Or both.
That is probably true IF BHO Sr. and SAD were legally married.
But they almost certainly were not married - there may not even have been a pretense of a civil marriage, and, even if there were it was invalidated by BHO Sr's legal marriage to Kezia.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 followed the common law - a bastard has no father (by the way, a sound legal principle which, if still followed, would save a lot of trouble).
If BHO Sr. was not legally married to SAD he could not transmit UK nationality to SAD's child.
Yes, and if that were ever challenged you can be certain Congress would pass omnibus legislation ratifying all such actions retroactive to January 20, 2009.
Your contention is ridiculous. Law either is or is not. If law is to be, it can ONLY be what the law says. If, as you contend, law is what is "assumed" or "believed", there is in fact NO law. Tell that to a state trooper that you "assumed" or "believed" that the speed limit was something other than was posted.
So you believe that, if the USSC heard a birther case while "Obama" were still President, that they would (for the first time) adopt the Vattel definition and declare the Office of President void?
My contentions are two:
1) That is extremely unlikely to occur, and,
2) It is, because of the 2008 election and subsequent certification by Congress, a nonjusticeable political question as to "Obama".
I think both are sound and easily defensible. I don't think either one is "ridiculous".
The Twentieth amendment, section three has nothing to do with the certification of the election process. It has everything to do with the President elect (who is not identified until AFTER Cheney signs the certification) proving his/eligibility to Congress. If this is not done, he/she has "failed to qualify" and according to the eligibility stipulations in Article two can NEVER be a legal President. Congressional malfeasance doesn't make him/her legal in any way. Those who swore an oath to support this Constitution are duty bound to ensure it is complied with. This gives them legal standing to question anything that potentially attacks the Constitution. Take the oath, you have standing. Ignore something destructive to the Constitution and you are part of the destruction.
But he is the president, even if you call it illegal. The only remedy at this point is impeachment. There is no other authority but congress that can remove him.
A lot of folks here have not thought through how their wishful thinking would work. Who exactly would walk Obama out the door? The military? The SC justices? Who would actually get passed the gate?
A lot of folks here have not thought through how their wishful thinking would work. Who exactly would walk Obama out the door? The military? The SC justices? Who would actually get passed the gate?
If its proved he is ineligible, about half the nation would escort him out in body chains if he hadn’t already cut an run to Kenya
A usurper is a usurper and can never be a "legal" President. If a "failure to qualify" is discovered to be in place, Joe Biden becomes President (if he meets eligibility requirements) or Congress must name a replacement. Impeachment only applies to a legal President. An arrest can be made at any time, anywhere if this is the case.
Again, who is going to do the arresting?
I’m guilty - arrest ME!!
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.