Posted on 06/27/2015 8:12:51 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
Two of the five votes concerning same sex marriage are totally illegitimate. They were cast by Elenor Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer acting as though they are legal members of the United States Supreme Court. Any challenge to this ruling should include a challenge to their legitimacy as they were appointed by a Usurper, not a legal President.
It's time to take the gloves off and get the courage to confront the evil that is before us. I can prove that Obama is illegal just using the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and have made this case many times on this forum. The charade has gone on long enough. We the people have the "reset" button in our hands with the Obama eligibility issue and we need to use it.
That the current federal government has declared war on on every one of us cannot be disputed. Obama's weak spot is his legitimacy as a legal President. Attacking it is our nuclear option. Someone please, hit the button.
True, but I want equality of speech. I don't like tolerating utter liberal monopoly of it regaring all means of mass communications.
I consider the task of destroying the Liberal monopoly of Speech the most important one we can undertake, and I find it intolerable that most of our efforts aren't focused on driving them into the sea.
If judges are pretending to be stupid, there’s always members of the Tea Party caucus in Congress who could accomplish the same thing by Congressional Subpoena.
I’m sure not every conservative member of Congress is “pretending to be stupid.”
Here’s what a federal judge said in an Obama eligibility challenge:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
The process for removal of a sitting president— removal for any reason—is within the province of the Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett, Keyes, et. al. v Obama, et. al.
Birthers are still looking for the magic "do-over" button that will return the status quo to January 19th, 2009.
Well, there are actually Democrats in congress ... and i'm pretty sure they aren't pretending.
Agree! But for starters, I’d be happy to see even one GOP-tvDem POTUS debate moderated by a true conservative. The fact that all the ‘moderators’ are liberal has gotten to be more than I can take.
Yes, it galls me too that our side can't seem to get over being stupid when it comes to what the media are and what they will do.
Ted Cruz and Scott Walker seems to be the only people cognizant of the fact that Media people are worse than ISIS fighters.
Cruz and Walker are just excellent in dealing with the crazed-leftist but intellectually-limited media types.
Can you see either of them meekly yielding to Candy Crowley the way Romney did? We have some very promising candidates this time around.
A criminal contempt of Congress citation carries a misdemeanor charge of a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1000 and imprisonment of not less than one month nor more tham one year.
From the Rules of Congress:
“Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony OR TO PRODUCE PAPERS under inquiry upon any matter before either House, or any Joint Committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the inquiry under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty...”
Let’s find a member of Congress who is willing to open an Obama natural horn citzen-eligibility investigation and subpoena Hawaii government officials past and present and also subpoena the original birth certificate for congressional committee inspection.
There is a difference between a conservative member of Congress and a Democrat.
“Well, there are actually Democrats in congress ... and i’m pretty sure they aren’t pretending (to be stupid).”
Lol.
Did Congress ask Ronald Reagan to prove his eligibility?
I have no idea. Perhaps someone who does can chime in.
I'm sure you'll find them in exactly the same place as you will find ones to support the confederate flag or oppose gay marriage. Do let me know when you've found one, won't you?
This is how you do it. You take the fact that everyone is cowed of the media's anal probing they would get from making this an issue, as proof that there is nothing to investigate.
As Upton Sinclair once said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
A lot of people suspect that this is the same problem with you.
Really? Have you been keeping up with the news lately?
:)
I very much doubt it, but then Reagan had not spent much of his life trying to convince others that he was some sort of exotic foreign Prince or something.
Ronald Reagan’s qualifications as a natural born citizen were not challenged, neither were Jimmy Carter’s nor Walter Mondale’s.
The only way that a presidential candidate “proves” that they are eligible is by meeting the ballot qualification requirements in each of the fifty states plus the District of Columbia. Each state is different.
Depending on the state, any candidate’s eligiblity can be challenged by opposing candidates, or by registered voters or by any citizen. Challenges in courts place the burden of proof on the challenger, not the candidate.
States also have Elections Boards composed of appointed citizens, elected officials or a mixture of both. For example, the state of Kansas has an “Objections Board” composed of the Attorney General, the Lieutenant Governor and the Secretary of State who rule on eligibility challenges.
Uncle Sham, I don’t know what questions Reagan was or wasn’t asked on this subject. It seems it would be helpful, though, in discussing citizenship, to know where the mother resided prior, and up to, the time of birth. This is known in Reagan’s case. The house in which his mother lived immediately prior to birthing him is still standing. You can see pictures of it on the internet. The same info is available for Carter and most others. This knowledge—i.e.: the address of the mother’s residence at the time of birrh—makes a good starting point for the discussion of citizenship.
Yes.
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.