Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
“How is the system set up to insure that a non-eligible President can never illegally occupy our White House?”
__
The Founding Fathers wanted most of all for the power of selecting the President to be left to the people. So they enshrined in our Constitution the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. As soon as a candidate comes into prominence, people are free to say and publish whatever they like about him. If there is evidence of ineligibility, it is incumbent upon those who have the evidence to make their case to the public.
I made the point earlier, and you don’t seem to dispute it, that the public has remained hugely unswayed by the ineligibility arguments. There is no groundswell of support, there is no rising up in protest. And this was intended by the Founding Fathers to be our first line of defense.
But they provided a second line too, a safety valve. If for some reason an ineligible candidate managed to keep his secrets from every investigative journalist and opposition researcher, and that the public chose to elect him, the Congress is still given a chance to block the votes of the Electoral College. As I’m sure you know, not s single objection was filed by a single member of either house of Congress for either of the two elections.
The Founding Fathers distributed the power to choose the President in a way that the weight falls mostly on the people, but in part on the Congress. Those who claim Obama is ineligible could have succeeded by persuading either the people or the Congress of the validity of their claims. They have failed utterly on both scores.
It’s not too late. The Constitution also provides for impeachment if the House feels that the evidence supports it. Yet, even now with several Republicans talking about impeachment, I am not seeing ineligibility as a significant claim. There really are very, very few who still take it seriously.
I've been a FReeper since 1998. I am not an Obot or a troll, and you could never find a single post of mine in 14 years to show that I am. I am a lawyer, and I know a bit about what courts do, and do not do, in our system. Ignoring reality is not a conservative virtue.
I opposed Obama's re-election the way the Constitution says I should-- I voted for Governor Romney.
I’m with you. The utterly naive here disregard the elephant in the room, and that is how the 4th estate influences and directs the public opinion and the stands of politicians, in fact and in practice intimidating the political establishment. Captain Obvious here, but look how Watergate was manufactured out of a meaningless break-in into a Major Scandal, and how Benghazi is less known to the public than Ben Gazzara! It doesn’t exist until we say it exists!
If everybody is dead it makes it difficult for them to lobby anybody. By then the damage is done. Once an election is over, DC jubilantly yells, “SUCKAS!!!” and then does whatever it darn well pleases for the next 2-4 years. Lawless. Is that really how the Founders meant to curb the “absolute corruption” they knew was inevitable when the people have no recourse to get justice or to see the rule of law enforced?
Courts are supposed to interpret and apply the Constitution, which is never allowed to be overturned, changed, or violated by a mere election.
You do affirm that, don’t you? A mere election is never allowed to violate the US Constitution which says that a President elect (one who has jumped through all the political hoops of both the vote and the certification of the electoral vote and been declared the electoral winner) who has “failed to qualify” by the beginning of his term may not act as President. Do you agree?
Who is responsible to apply and enforce the 20th Amendment - after the voters and Congress are all done with their election responsibilities? (Hint: it can’t be either the voters or Congress, because their Constitutionally-prescribed roles are done at that point.) Exactly who does the Constitution give responsibility to interpret and apply the US Constitution? Through what procedures and means?
When you read the statute that governs the certification of the electoral vote, where do you see anything that talks about the eligibility of the President and Vice President? When I read it I saw authorization to ask about whether the electors were all duly appointed or elected, whether the results were properly certified in the states, etc.
Furthermore, Obama doesn’t have to show Congress his birth certificate, and Congress members can’t get the HDOH to give them anything, any more than you or I can. And as I’ve pointed out many times, Hawaii statute does not allow a legislative body to determine birth facts. Obama’s eligibility depends on FACT AND LAW. Congress has no skill, authorization, or access to resolve either matters of fact or matters of law. That’s what courts are for.
And you’re refused to address my questions of how Congress can be the final authority on this according to the Constitution, when the Constitution still REQUIRES that a “President elect” - having already been approved/certified as the winner by Congress - be prohibited from acting as President if they haven’t qualified. Who exactly is supposed to decide that the certified President elect has failed to qualify and to force that person to refrain from acting as President? Who? And how are they supposed to be able to do that? What you’ve said makes no provision for that.
Furthermore, because the failure to qualify comes AFTER Congress is done with their Constitutionally-prescribed role, the matter of determining that the President elect has failed to qualify CANNOT be appointed to Congress. That blows apart the whole theory that you’re espousing, and all the excuses that the courts have used. You need to address this because it is the coup de grace to what you are claiming.
You’re referring to that old “constitution”, aren’t you. Irrelevant in today’s court system.
A candidate for President says nobody will address it because it is TOO serious.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Lurking Libertarian: Who is supposed to enforce the 20th Amendment, which requires a President elect who fails to qualify to refrain from acting as President? To be President elect, both the voters and Congress have done everything they can do in the democratic process that you described. Yet the 20th Amendment specifically allows that the President that the voters chose and the Congress certified can still be kept from acting as President.
To whom does the Constitution appoint that responsibility of stopping the elected-and-certified but UNQUALIFIED President elect from acting as President? How is that supposed to be done - through what procedure?
Troll is a mindset, not a level of experience.
How did you respond when Judge Robertson ruled that an eligibility lawsuit was frivolous because Obama’s legal eligibility had already been decided on Twitter? Your response tells us whether you are a lawyer, or a troll.
How did you respond when Judge Carter hired a clerk from Perkins-Coie while in the middle of a prominent case being argued by Perkins-Coie? How did you respond when shortly after hiring that clerk Judge Carter did a total reversal on that case that was being argued by Perkins-Coie? Again, the way you respond to that tells us whether you are a lawyer, or a troll.
How did you respond when it was ruled that 4 years’ worth of Army Reserves pay did not meet the $500 threshold to make a “case”?
How did you respond when Chief Justice Roberts took the unprecedented step of inviting Obama to visit the Supreme Court on the same day that SCOTUS was conferring on Donofrio’s eligibility case?
How did you respond when Kagan and Sotomayor refused to recuse themselves from conferring on a case where their very jobs were the issue?
How did you respond when Judge Surick reversed everything he had done and all of a sudden decided that democratic contributor Phil Berg had no particularized harm if the money he contributed to get an eligible candidate resulted instead in a candidate who could be booted out for ineligibility?
How did you respond when Bettina Viviano revealed that Hillary’s top advisors shared that the plan had always been to challenge Obama’s eligibility at the 2008 DNC Convention, but that the plan was thwarted when 2 people - Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs - were each killed in succession in the weeks before the convention shortly after they each agreed to present the petition, and Hillary and Bill only finally dropped the issue when Chelsea’s life was threatened?
How did you respond when Judge Malihi declared Obama eligible after presenting no evidence, when he had already said that the burden of proof fell on Obama to prove his eligibility? Did you object to that “judge’s knowledge”, Iran mullah-style sharia ruling?
How did you respond when Judge Malihi refused to certify the court proceedings so the transcript could be sent upwards for a higher judge to consider contempt of court charges against Obama and his lawyer, who were both ordered to appear and didn’t?
How did you respond when the GA appeals court secretary refused to file the pleadings, so that the appeals judge actually gave a verdict before the secretary had allowed any case to be filed?
How did you respond when the judge in the Voeltz case in FL threw out a case with guaranteed standing, claiming none of it mattered because Obama was President for the last 4 years?
How did you respond when a military judge ruled that the Constitutional ability of a person to “act as President” is irrelevant to the lawfulness of combat orders that by the War Powers Act can only be authorized by someone acting as the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief?
How did you respond when a judge’s assistant told Orly Taitz that she could have witnesses in her 20-minute allotted timespan, but ordered no witnesses while her witnesses were in mid-flight? How did you respond when most of her 20 minutes were taken up by the judge claiming that he controls everything and it doesn’t matter what his assistant said or what her doofus mistakes cost Taitz?
How did you respond when Linda Jordan presented an affidavit alerting judges to law enforcements’ probative evidence for fraud (which is what the statute allowed her to report and demanded action from the judge to remedy) and the judge ignored reported state and federal fraud and forgery?
See, trollishness is behavior. These are serious ethics violations. Show me where you stood for integrity by your fellow lawyers, or please excuse me while I go vomit from exposure to lawyers.
And the ability to threaten both conservative and liberal media into silence and/or ridicule on an issue where multiple crimes have been committed and the very existence of the country is at stake.... should scare the crap out of everybody. Anybody who’s not scared by now is already dead.
Oliver Stone is waking up. Anonymous is waking up. Right now the issue is whether enough people will wake up BEFORE the economic collapse, EMP attack, or biological WMD attack give Obama an excuse to set his cherry-picked, no-qualms-about-shooting-Americans military leadership at work on controlling us by billions of hollow-point bullets in a martial law scenario.
I cannot comprehend anybody who thinks that having a foreign enemy combatant in our White House is not serious. They’ve got to be either suicidal or fatally stupid.
I think it is naive beyond belief to cite silence as proof that crime has not been committed. So McCain and Romney had “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility. How do we know that, it hasn’t been tested. Did their VP candidates have standing? What about Herman Cain? The fact remains that Obama’s eligibility has not been demonstrated.
If Mickey Mouse declared that he is “gay” then he could run, be elected and no one would question it. For a similar reason why Obama’s crimes are tolerated. Because the stigma or “racism” is the sole reason for the silence, as it was for the readily accepted non-guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial and the manipulated public opinion’s “guilty verdict” in the same trial on detective Mark Fuhrman. The Founding Fathers cited here in defense of the indefensible did not and could not predict such scenarios.
Finally, what was the last Presidency that you can cite that was as scandal free (in the MSM) for 4 years as this Presidency?
Hillary would have had standing, but the 2 people who were going to present the petition challenging Obama’s eligibility at the DNC Convention were killed. She gave it up when Chelsea’s life was threatened.
Do any of us doubt that the same kind of threat was used on McCain?
The Sept 2008 run on the bank happened on a Thursday, IIRC. That weekend Congress declared martial law so they could try to pass TARP. But there was resistance. Not a peep out of GW Bush; he was letting Congress deal with it. The markets were fine. McCain kept campaigning. Then about a week later, on Wednesday, McCain got a call from Obama, and McCain immediately went on TV and said he was suspending his campaign. He wanted to cancel the debates but Obama wouldn’t agree to it (You don’t try to cancel all future debates if it’s just a stunt to try to convince people you’re “presidential”, as campaign people later claimed.)
The SAME DAY Pres Bush gave a speech to the nation saying the world was going to end if we didn’t pass TARP. Bush had stayed out of everything for about a week and the world hadn’t fallen apart, and then all of a sudden in one single day, McCain basically gave up on running for President and GW Bush was saying we have to pass a drop-in-the-bucket TARP or else the world will end. It was months before TARP was passed and the world didn’t end on any of those days. So what Bush feared was NOT the natural economic effect of not passing TARP; the markets were OK during that time. What he feared was apparently some threat applied outside the normal workings of the market.
Obviously somebody scared the heck out of both those guys. And it stayed that way to the extent that McCain muzzled Palin and wouldn’t let her talk about any of the things that should have warned the public about who Obama really is.
I have it from somebody who is in a position to know, that Bush was pushing the media to not report on Obama’s eligibility also. Bush was aware that the media was being threatened by Soros and Bush was telling the media not to resist Soros. And even if the threat was FCC/FEC annihilation after the election, the media heads could still have resisted Soros if they knew the Bush DOJ would support the rule of law. They wouldn’t. Bush was threatened with something before the media was threatened - something that got Bush scared enough that he would chime in on urging the conservative media heads to just obey Soros. The media was threatened in October, so the threat to Bush came before that. I believe on the same day as the threat came to McCain. The day both McCain and Bush acted like a gun was being held to the head of somebody or something that they love.
McCain has his own problems. He’s certainly shown a willingness to get harsh with conservative opponents. But with Obama he just rolled over and died, and made Palin do the same. Romney has basically done the same thing. The 2 SOS’s who asked for verifications and received verifications that there was a problem with Obama’s HI BC.... were both part of Romney’s campaign team. They do as they are told.
Remember how Boehner was crying most of the time, right after the 2008 run on the bank? The day after McCain and Bush both acted scared out of their skulls, there was a meeting with Bernanke, Paulson, and Congressional leaders, IIRC. Boehner was the minority leader at that time and would have been at that meeting. Remember also that Bernanke and Paulson were saying that the world was going to end if we didn’t pass TARP. I can’t remember the name of another guy, but he was on one of the committees that was involved in sorting things out, and it was commented on here that when he spoke to Congress he was saying the world is going to end, and he looked like he had a gun held to his head. I hadn’t seen it myself, but when somebody made that comment it struck me because that was how ALL these guys were acting, and I was just beginning to make the connection between the Soros communist-Islamist alliance and what kind of threat could cause people like Dick Cheney, Bush, Chief Justice Roberts, etc to roll over and die.
We give Boehner a hard time about being a crybaby but I’m wondering if he was crying partly because he knew America was dead. He was figuratively being forced to rape his grandmother (or daughter) to death in full view of everybody, or have her shot to death immediately. And he’s been following orders from Soros ever since. Even on stuff during the lame-duck democratic House, like giving up on our missile defense system, DADT, etc. Stuff they could have just waited for the R House to be sworn in and could have done what they wanted. But they didn’t. It was like they were taking orders from somebody else.
And that’s how it has felt ever since. Like they are all taking orders from somebody else. They’re watching EO’s undo the Constitution, watching our foreign policy and national security go to heck in a handbasket... and just watching, like they’re taking orders from somebody else.
Like I’ve said before, a R Presidential primary candidate said within Col Lawrence Sellin’s earshot that Obama’s ineligibility wasn’t being addressed because it goes way too deep. I think we now know that it goes deep into the communist plans and the Islamist plans, and the union of the two towers through George Soros and his puppet Obama.
Way back in the 1960’s one of the founders of The New Party - Frances Fox Piven - had, together with her husband Richard Cloward, devised a plan to collapse the US from within, through corrupted economic practices and corrupted elections. The attorney who was recruited to carry out the legal maneuvers necessary to allow that destruction of the US was Barack Obama, and about the only legal actions he used his Saudi-funded and Ayers-aided Harvard law degree for were to argue the Motor Voter Act and to harass banks into subprime lending to meet racial quotas. The two LEGAL planks of the Cloward-Piven Plan. Obama was a sworn member of the New Party, which was the non-violent wing of the Weather Underground, intended to infiltrate the democratic and/or republican parties with communists who would pull the party hard left while still having the appearance of being democratic or republican. In effect, stealing the “branding”/credibility of the party and using it for the Communist Party.
Notice that Obama’s Harvard degree was the union of Islamist funding (the Saudi prince, according to Percy Sutton) and communist logistics (Bill Ayers’ parents, according to the postman to whom Mrs. Ayers said they were “helping” a foreign-born student from Kenya to get his education). It’s the communist-Islamist alliance, and it’s been around for a long, long time. It is seen in all of Obama’s life, including the marriages of his mother, the politics of his cousin Raila Odinga, and the people he has surrounded himself with his entire life (think of his Pakistani college friends with whom he visited Pakistan, and his self-admitted involvement in communist groups in college). This is who Obama is, and who he values and serves.
He is a perfect match/puppet for Soros, who has always been communist and since 9-11-01 has said that he wants America to lose the “war on terror”, because America and capitalism are the 2 great evils that he, as “God”, has to destroy. IOW, Soros the communist has openly allied himself with Islamic terrorism, in the interest of destroying their common enemy, a free and prosperous America.
Lurking Libertarian, I’m pinging you on this, because I think that as a Jewish person you would want to be aware of this information. George Soros survived the Holocaust by pretending he was not Jewish and taking the property of Jews who were sent (or would be sent) off to the concentration camps. He has sold out his people for a song and a dance, and he is doing the same to America right now. He is a traitor to everything you love, and Obama is his kindred spirit/puppet who has the same goals - which Obama privately stated to the Egyptian ambassador in January of 2010: the Muslim agenda (the destruction of the US and Israel, and the institution of worldwide sharia).
“Who is supposed to enforce the 20th Amendment, which requires a President elect who fails to qualify to refrain from acting as President?”
__
I don’t know the answer. But I know one thing, and I am sure you will agree with it: Whoever is supposed to enforce it would take action only if convinced that the President-elect had failed to qualify.
The voting public, over two elections, has not come remotely close to being convinced. The Congress, in the same period of time, has not been convinced either and has voted unanimously twice to confirm the President’s election. Even the Republican Party, which staunchly opposes Obama, has completely refrained from adopting an ineligibility argument.
You are looking for yet another body to have the power to make this decision, but you seem reluctant to acknowledge that those who clearly have such a power under the Constitution have made the same unambiguous decision — just not the one you’d like.
By far, the strongest political voice in the country belongs to the people. If you had convinced a majority of the population that the President was ineligible, you would be in a very different position now. Having failed to do so, all you can to is demand that someone else override the people’s choice. As you can see, that’s not likely to happen, especially on the basis of arguments that have shown themselves in practice to have little or no persuasive power.
“Finally, what was the last Presidency that you can cite that was as scandal free (in the MSM) for 4 years as this Presidency?”
__
LOL! I gotta tell you, your voice sounds very familiar.
I’m glad we can at least agree that it’s not Congress or the voters who are supposed to initiate this action between the certification of the electoral vote and the inauguration. The job of whoever is supposed to do this is to UNDO THE EFFECT OF AN ELECTION, so this is NOT a “political issue”, and whoever is supposed to do it has to be somebody with Constitutional authority (and actually according to the 20th Amendment a Constitutional OBLIGATION) to undo the effect of a nationwide election. That can’t be the legislative branch or the executive branch. What does that leave?
That leaves the judiciary.
I can’t agree that a faithful judiciary will take action only if they are convinced of Obama’s ineligibility; that is the purpose of discovery, which only comes AFTER action is initiated.
If they are faithful to the Constitution they need to take action if they believe that the CONSTITUTION CALLS FOR IT. That is, if there is a case or controversy regarding the interpretation and application of the Constitution.
Even Obama has admitted that there is a controversy; that’s why he released 2 forgeries. That ought to settle it. The Constitution calls for action. Period. During discovery the evidence can be weighed, facts determined, and the law applied. To require all that to be done BEFORE initiating action is a perversion of what the system is even for.
At this point the media has deliberately censored out half of Bennett’s request - the half that shows that Onaka could/would not verify Obama’s gender, date of birth, city of birth, island of birth, mother’s name, or father’s name, even though required to do so if the BC in their office is legally valid. As long as judges have to be convinced by THE MEDIA before addressing legal complaints and suits, we will never have justice in this country. The media is ex parte, and that’s ALL our judicial system has operated on this whole time. It’s a travesty of justice and the judges who are engaging in it know that full well.
Which is why Kagan and Sotomayor have had to refuse to recuse themselves from conferring over cases where their own positions were at issue - a gross breach of judicial ethics. They can’t afford to recuse themselves, because if the court wasn’t stacked with people dependent on the usurper’s legitimacy there might be enough honest justices to actually obey the Constitution.
Just one other thing I should add to what I said.
This “controversy” (a President elect failing to qualify) is the one Constitutional controversy that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution with a specific outcome that must be reached. There is no other judicial issue which is addressed by the Constitution in this way. Even treason has capital punishment as a POSSIBLE outcome, but it is not mandated. This is a judicial action so critical to the Constitution that it mandates the outcome.
For the Supreme Court to refuse to hear these eligibility cases/controversies that they conferred on, because the issue of whether tobacco companies should be fined is so much more Constitutionally important is a big middle finger salute to everybody who has ever even READ the Constitution, much less the people who died to put it in place and keep it in place.
It’s happened because Sotomayor and Kagan refuse to recuse themselves. They are two more people who need to experience the Constitutional remedy for treason.
Thank you LL. That makes sense.
“That ought to settle it.”
__
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But as I have said repeatedly, your evidence and arguments have uniformly failed to persuade, and continuing to tell us what you think ought to settle the matter will continue to accomplish nothing.
As you admit, your goal is to “UNDO THE EFFECT OF AN ELECTION,” and I’m sure you will agree that this is a drastic measure which can only be accomplished by presenting a strong case and convincing those in authority to act.
There is nothing to prohibit the Republicans, who control the House, to convene hearings on the eligibility matter. They would have broad subpoena power, and the very fact of calling the hearings would alert the public that someone is taking these claims seriously.
The fact that you are having trouble persuading even those who are vehemently opposed to the President and his policies should serve to remind you of how weak your evidence is perceived to be. You’ve had over four years to make your case, and you’re welcome to keep trying.
Perkins-Coie did not represent anyone in the eligibility case before Judge Carter. Are ignorant or lying?
How did you respond when shortly after hiring that clerk Judge Carter did a total reversal on that case that was being argued by Perkins-Coie? Again, the way you respond to that tells us whether you are a lawyer, or a troll.
Carter didn't "totally reverse" himself, and the case was not being handled by Perkins-Coie. Are you ignorant or lying?
How did you respond when Chief Justice Roberts took the unprecedented step of inviting Obama to visit the Supreme Court on the same day that SCOTUS was conferring on Donofrio’s eligibility case?
Hardly unprecedented; several prior Presidents (including Reagan) had met with SCOTUS before their inauguration. And SCOTUS wasn't "deliberating" about Donofrio's case; it had already been dead-listed, as is evident from the fact that there had been no call by the Court for a response. Are you ignorant or lying?
I could go on, but none of your so-called "facts" are remotely close to the truth.
You’re ignoring what I said.
A usurper installed 2 hench-women on our Supreme Court, and they are refusing to let the Supreme Court do what the Constitution specifically requires.
Do you have a problem with that? Is it OK with you if judges decide their own murder case, for instance?
The only evidence we have at this point is the HI state registrar certifying that he obeyed the law and verified everything he could, when he refused to verify any birth facts for Obama. We also have law enforcement initiating a criminal investigation based on probable cause for forgery of the documents all these legal critters claim is the reason we don’t need to look at this in a legal setting. You can talk until the cows come home about how good the evidence is or isn’t, but everything we can legally have at this point to indicate a problem.... we’ve got.
And we’ve got one of the R primary candidates admitting that it’s not the evidence that is the problem. The problem is that Obama’s eligibility issue goes WAY TOO DEEP. IOW, this issue is TOO serious and the truth is TOO dangerous/convincing for anybody to be willing to touch it.
Is that OK with you?
Why tell me my thimble full of water is ineffective, instead of asking why the country is an inferno and nobody with the big hose is willing to lift a finger? I know darn good and well that my little thimble of water (truth) is no match for the OIL (lies) that the media is pouring on by the barrel-full in order to keep the inferno alight. So what’s your point? Why are you here? Are you adding water, adding oil, or just getting in the way of my water ever being able to touch the fire?
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.