Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Orly Taitz Flock Shootin'
Lame Cherry ^ | 0/19/09 | staff

Posted on 09/19/2009 9:56:00 PM PDT by pissant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-273 last
To: mlo

If there are constitutional requirements, then they must be met. If they must be met, then the applicant (candidate) must do so upon request.


261 posted on 09/21/2009 11:10:41 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: pissant
"If there are constitutional requirements, then they must be met. If they must be met, then the applicant (candidate) must do so upon request."

You are making things up. There is no requirement that a sitting President provide documentation of his eligibility "upon request".

The process of choosing the President happens *prior* to swearing in. It was followed. He met all the requirements asked of him, and there is still no proof that somehow he isn't eligible.

He wasn't an "applicant", but if you want to use that analogy then the voters are the ones doing the hiring, and they've already spoken. He is no longer an "applicant". He has the job.

262 posted on 09/21/2009 11:26:51 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: mlo

The issue was raised and the lawsuits were filed well before Jan 20th. But you know that.


263 posted on 09/21/2009 11:41:24 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: mlo

PS. Voters having “hired” the candidate didn’t work out so well for some others who were removed from office for false ‘applications’.


264 posted on 09/21/2009 11:42:57 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Because rules of employment are a bit different than the requirements to remove someone from the presidency.


265 posted on 09/21/2009 1:20:52 PM PDT by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky

True. Most rules of employment are not the supreme law of the land.


266 posted on 09/21/2009 1:24:50 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: pissant
The issue was raised and the lawsuits were filed well before Jan 20th. But you know that.

And where, specifically, does the Constitution give the judicial branch the power to vet presidential candidates?

267 posted on 09/21/2009 1:47:15 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

It’s not the “judicial branch” vetting. It is the people. The judiciary is the vehicle.

Try this little number out.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Now if just one of those states had bothered to check....


268 posted on 09/21/2009 1:53:35 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
I challenge you to tell me otherwise.

Never forget that confusion breeds opportunity. If Obewan were taken for ineligibility there would be chaos. The commie bastards would not be able to accomplish anything for the rest of the term. Hell, it may take several years to figure out if any policies implemented or bills Obama signed would be consitutional.

This would be break conservatives need to organize and get back in control. And I am not talking about Republicans. I mean conservatives.

It is likely so many would be pissed off about the communist lies that democrats could be buried for years.

269 posted on 09/21/2009 2:09:32 PM PDT by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pissant
It’s not the “judicial branch” vetting. It is the people. The judiciary is the vehicle.

LOL. So the judiciary represents the people?

That's a good one.

I'm sure the trial lawyers would love that interpretation of the Constitution! Pity that it is nowhere to be found in the writings of the framers...

270 posted on 09/21/2009 3:54:12 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Did I say the judiciary “is the people”?

And are all courts federal and covered by the federal constitution?

And please tell me where it is enumerated - because if it isn’t it falls to the states and the people - for the feds to be responsible for vetting the qualifications?

Guess what spanky, they aren’t. So the people and the states, using the courts (state or federal) are perfectly obliged to force the issue.


271 posted on 09/21/2009 4:02:31 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
Finally, in the absence of proof that he is NOT a legitimate president (and failing to answer someone's questions regarding eligibility does not constitute "proof") any orders he gives have to be considered lawful. I didn't like serving under Clinton, either, but he was still my C-in-C. As a wise old chief once said to me, "You get to defend democracy, you don't get to practice it!"

I fully agree with you on the last sentence!

There is absolutely NO question about cigar Billy was and is a NBC!!

However regarding the first sentence the undeniable facts are the present renter and usurper in the W.H., an illegal alien is NOT a NBC and then NOT eligible to be C-i-C!!!

272 posted on 09/21/2009 4:57:35 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; little jeremiah

Wow, how inglorious for him to have his posts yanked as well.

Maybe the other trolls will take notice.


273 posted on 09/21/2009 11:25:58 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-273 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson