Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
Are you or are you not a doctor?
You made a medical claim to score points in your argument. You’ve been called on it. Provide proof that you are a medical doctor or admit that you are a fraud posing as a medical professional in order to score points in your argument.
Again, English must be your second language anyhow, imho because here is my full paragraph that you commented on and demand proof while having problems understanding the first 4 words of the following paragraph.
“I think it was mostly complacency with some turning their heads and others not wanting to get squashed by the political machine within the media. The birthers overplaying their hand certainly factored in as well as opposition infiltration into the said group — mainly the hysterical hate they expressed, finally add in the profiteers and you have where we are today.”
So the trap is sprung. I gave you all the rope and you greedily took it up. You’re the only one who pretended in this argument.
Rather than manically, frantically dissembling, why not lay all this to rest? Simply provide a link to an “infiltrator” expressing “hysterical hate”.
It’s that simple.
Facts:
The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Impeachments are tried by the Senate. Judgement shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit.
The Executive is liable to impeachment.
The Judiciary has exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
Eligibility is a question of law & fact.
The Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law is in no way constrained by the Legislature’s authority to impeach.
Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility.
When a case is brought to the Court and a determination of ineligibility is made a person is barred from being seated in office or removed from office.
Live with the Constitution you have, not the Constitution you want.
That is an incredibly stupid statement. The fact that ignorance is widespread does not make their IGNORANT decisions correct. Some of those same dumbasses let that Nicaraguan guy on the ballot.
Was he qualified? No! Were they stupid? Yes! Stupidity is simply rampant on this issue. We have a collection of incompetent idiots running things, and that is exactly how Obama got through. With actual adults in charge, it wouldn't have happened.
Eligibility is not a political question.
Eligibility is not a policy decision. Eligibility is determined according to law. The facts concerning an individual’s eligibility are judicially discoverable. A person is or is not eligible, as determined judicially.
Questions of law are exclusively committed to the Judicial branch.
Questions of eligibility can be resolved only by the Judiciary.
Eligibility is not determined by plebiscite.
Eligibility is not determined by Congress.
Eligibility is not determined by statute.
Eligibility is not determined by regulation.
Eligibility is determined by the Judiciary finding facts and applying law.
fish man....love it.....
Nor is eligibility determined by occupancy of office.
To determine eligibility the Judiciary applies the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, which states:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
They then fine the facts concerning an individual and determine whether that individual is a natural born citizen, thirty five years old, and fourteen years a resident within the United States.
If the individual is eligible then they are President; if the individual is not eligible then they are not President.
fine = find
I know one thing FOR A FACT
you are here to deceive.period.
| To: Ray76 You don’t have a right to ask me questions until you answer mine first ... since mine was asked first and then again, and again and again. While I have repeatedly answered your question with a succinct yes or no. So I’ll ask you again 1. Is Obama President of the United States? I’ll give you the answers yet you refuse to answer. Live with the Constitution you have, not the Constitution you want. |
Here are crystal clear answers to your questions:
How is a President constitutionally removed from office? By impeachment.
Is Obama President of the United States? I have reasonable doubt.
Now you live with the facts:
The Judiciary has exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
Eligibility is a question of law & fact.
The Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law is in no way constrained by the Legislature’s authority to impeach.
Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility.
When a case is brought to the Court and a determination of ineligibility is made a person is barred from being seated in office or removed from office.
Now it’s your turn to answer questions.
Is eligibility determined by plebiscite?
Is eligibility determined by Congress?
Is eligibility determined by statute?
Is eligibility determined by regulation?
Is eligibility a political question?
Is eligibility a policy decision?
Does occupancy of office confer eligibility?
Is eligibility a question of law & fact?
Are questions of law exclusively committed to the Judicial branch?
Are the facts concerning an individual’s eligibility judicially discoverable?
I’ve answered your questions.
I look forward to your answers to my questions. I now have the right after all.
Nothing to say?
1. Is eligibility determined by plebiscite?
If by that you mean a general election for the Presidency, then there is de facto determination by the electorate. Once the electorate has given approval to a candidate, it's near impossible to imagine the Congress or the Courts seeking to overturn that.
2. Is eligibility determined by Congress?
As among the electorate, the judiciary or the Congress, the better argument rests ultimate determination with the Congress.
3. Is eligibility determined by statute?
This question may be relevant in the case of a person born outside the U.S. Congress certainly would likely accept its own determinations as to those who are citizens at birth. And even a court, in construing the meaning of "natural born citizen" might take into account Congressional intent. Statutes don't make determinations, so the question is poorly phrased. Though statutes might be considered by the determiner.
. 4. Is eligibility determined by regulation?
No.
5. Is eligibility a political question?
There has been a signal from several lower courts that it is. I don't know offhand what SCOTUS cases there have been since Baker v. Carr on topic, so I don't know how that court might lean.
6. Is eligibility a policy decision?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The eligibility requirements certainly reflect a policy decision on the part of the Framers. As to anyone making a determination today, it strikes me as case of a person either being eligible or not; I don't see where policy factors into answering that.
7. Does occupancy of office confer eligibility?
It's better to say that occupancy is evidence that eligibility requirements have been met and accepted.
8. Is eligibility a question of law & fact?
Yes.
9. Are questions of law exclusively committed to the Judicial branch?
There is a significant exception making "exclusively" incorrect: the Constitution commits to the Congress the authority to determine "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" committed by the President. That involves matters of law and fact.
Since the Congress has the authority to determine if a person is to be removed from office, a strong argument can be made that it is also the proper body to determine whether a person meets the qualifications of the office. Relevant on this point is the further authority vested in the Congress to hear objections to the acceptance of the Electoral College vote, which could entail objections based on eligibility of the person receiving the votes.
10. Are the facts concerning an individual’s eligibility judicially discoverable?
For the matter to be discoverable, the case would have to proceed past the pleading and motions stage. That requires at a minimum a proper plaintiff (standing) and a court with jurisdiction (political question). Those issues will sink most every case at the outset. Even assuming a case passes muster on those points, were the candidate in question to submit the usual state-issued birth certificate form, that would answer both the "natural born citizen" and "minimum age" requirements, likely precluding discovery on those issues. Though there could be an issue on the "residency" requirement requiring further factual exploration.
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.