Posted on 07/09/2013 7:26:23 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
I wish you the best of luck in finding a law enforcement, legislative or judicial body that will rule Obama to be Article Two, Section One ineligible so that your logical construction can be officially tested.
As for your opinion on the lack of intellectual integrity of my point of view, well, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Whether a court rules Obama Article 2 eligible or not is irrelevant. Your insistence on viewing through the lens of a desired political outcome blinds your mind to even the most fundamental principle and logic no matter how well established the principle or simple the logic. The altered eye alters all: take the goggles off.
I mentioned “law enforcement” and “legislative” remedies in my post, not JUST the courts.
Now you’re arguing in circles, just for the sake of being argumentative. If courts ruling Obama to be Article 2, Section 1 ineligible are “irrelevant,” why have challengers to Obama’s eligibility filed 207 civil suits, 90 appeals and 26 applications and petitions at the Supreme Court of the United States? Obviously you are out on a limb all by yourself in thinking that the courts are “irrelevant” to resolution of this issue.
One more time, my position comes from actual rulings on this precise constitutional point. I am not making this stuff up as I go along.
Barnett, Keyes et al. v. Obama, et al. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter: “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 CONGRESS, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
Which societal institution(s) do YOU think can effect the removal of an ineligible president? And who gets to make the definitive ruling on ineligibility.?
Focus.
The point is: an ineligible person can not be impeached.
Whether a court rules Obama Article 2 eligible or not is not relevant to the point, it has no effect on the point.
As pointed out the case cited is political and absurd on its face.
“Impeachment is a POLITICAL process”
Precisely. Conversely eligibility is a LEGAL matter. If eligibility were a political matter then there would be no set standard and Article II’s mandate would be negated, it would be an arbitrary and shifting standard.
Legal matters are the province of the Judiciary.
Carter’s opinion is political and ignores even the most basic elements of jurisprudence. The Constitution must be construed as a whole and it’s provisions read in a way that is compatible and not contradictory.
An ineligible person can not be impeached.
Yes, legal matters are indeed the province of the judiciary and in 2012 alone there were 50 Article Two, Section One legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot. Those legal challenges were heard in 22 states plus the District of Columbia and not one judge has ruled him to be ineligible while many judges ruled him to be qualified as a natural born citizen.
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Since 2008 there have been 207 original jurisdiction eligibility challenges, 90 state and federal appellate rulings and 26 petitions for Writs of Certiorari and Applications for Stays, Injunctions or extraordinary writs at the Supreme Court of the United States. No court and no individual judge or justice has ruled Obama to be ineligible.
Impeachment can be used as the process of determining if an elected or appointed official is ineligible for the office he holds.
And what relevance has any of that to the point that an ineligible person can not be impeached?
I’ll explain it to you.
A legal finding of ineligibility has been hard to come by and without such a finding, those who oppose Obama as a usurper of the presidency have been proceeding with an impeachment option as an alternative strategy on the grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors related to forgery, document altering, fraud, election fraud and identity theft.
Whether a legal finding of ineligibility has been hard to come by is not relevant to the point that an ineligible person can not be impeached.
Why can’t you admit that an ineligible person can not be impeached?
Under the American system of jurisprudence where any accused person has the presumption of innocence, I can’t think of anything MORE relevant than a legal finding of ineligibility.
Impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate is one method (not the only method) of determining that an elected or appointed federal official is indeed ineligible.
Perhaps you don’t understand that drawing up a Bill of Impeachment for government officials is the equivalent of constructing a criminal indictment in the civilian world. An official might be “allegedly ineligible” until they are actually impeached and then tried, convicted and removed.
For example, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives but he was found not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice in his Senate trial.
So yes, an [allegedly] ineligible official can indeed be impeached because there might not be credible evidence of ineligibility until a Bill of Impeachment is drawn up. And under the “de facto officer doctrine,” the ineligible official continues to hold the office until they are removed from office. One method of removal is conviction in an impeachment trial.
im•peach
v.t.
1. to accuse (a public official) of misconduct in office by bringing charges before an appropriate tribunal.
2. to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person’s motives.
5. to remove (a public official) from office for misconduct.
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). ‘The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.’” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984)
There haven’t been “many” judges who have ruled Obama to be eligible. There’s no question that most of these cases have been punted on procedural grounds, but only a handful have considered eligiblity, however those few cases failed to provide a consistent legal basis for assuming Obama to be eligible. A couple cited the Indiana Appeals Court which never declared Obama to be eligible and another one denied the obvious unanimous Supreme Court precedent that prevents Obama from being a natural-born citizen. That ain’t much to go on.
Before discussing any method of determining ineligibility can we agree that an ineligible person can not be impeached?
Ineligible officials have been removed by the courts. What precedent can you cite that says a "Bill of Impreachment" would have to be drawn up first to determine and/or review eligibility??
And under the “de facto officer doctrine,” the ineligible official continues to hold the office until they are removed from office.
The de facto officer doctrine doesn't pre-empt anyone from being removed from office if they are not eligible. You're trying to use a circular argument for for justifying illegal occupation of an office.
There is no constitutional, statutory or case law definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives can impeach for any reason that a majority of members agree to.
I never said nor implied that the de facto officer doctrine “pre-empt(ed) anyone from being removed from office if they are not eligible.” In fact, my point is that the de facto officer doctrine is precisely why an allegedly ineligible office holder can be impeached, tried, convicted and removed.
No, we cannot agree that an ineligible person cannot be impeached. It is my position that an ineligible person can indeed be impeached and that an ineligible person should be impeached due to the fact that knowingly assuming an office that one is ineligible for must involve the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” such as election fraud.
This is the last time that I will respond to that question. It’s been continually asked and answered.
This is the last time that I will respond to that question. It’s been continually asked and answered.
I have made you demonstrate repeatedly the incoherence of your position. Your refusal to abide by principles which you acknowledge proves that you seek an end by whatever means. The result you seek is not a legal determination but political stonewalling. Your interest is protecting Obama.
I have an idea. How about if the House first impeaches Obama and then lets him make the argument that he can't be impeached because he's ineligible to be president?
Don't put the cart before the horse - impeachment first, crazy defense later.
Sorry, but this is an irrelevant point. There is a precedent for courts to remove ineligible candidates. That would superceded an impeachment.
I never said nor implied that the de facto officer doctrine “pre-empt(ed) anyone from being removed from office if they are not eligible.” In fact, my point is that the de facto officer doctrine is precisely why an allegedly ineligible office holder can be impeached, tried, convicted and removed.
I was talking about being removed by a court, not by the legislative branch. Your suggestion was that the courts wouldn't or couldn't do this, but there is a precedent. And as for your claims, you have still have provided no precedent.
There are no “candidates” at the moment. The next presidential election is in 2016.
The only ways to remove a sitting president from office are by losing an election, impeachment, trial and conviction, resignation, and infirmity or death.
“In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”—”A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”
http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
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.