~~PING!
The analysis certainly seemed persuasive, but just as an added check, we called up Michael Small, a lawyer at Akin Gump in Los Angeles who last year taught a course at UCLA law on separation of powers.
Small explained that he “wasn’t surprised in the least” by the opinion.
“Any judge would have ruled this way,” he said. “I could imagine a judge enjoining a specific ruling issued by a president viewed as illegitimate, but not one ousting the president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And how is that Constitutionally/chronilogically feasible?? How can a president be “viewed as illegitimate” and NOT already be president at that occurrence ???
The word "illegitimate" in that sentence refers to a ruling (by the President) -- not to the President himself. In other words, he's saying it's not unusual for a court to strike down an executive ruling, but no court, due to separation of powers, would declare a President illegitimate. That power is Constitutionally delegated to Congress, once the President is sworn in.
Planned Fraud, which is still being carried on to the tune of 2 million dollars and growing. We will oust him at the ballot box if necessary, and this ammo WILL come in handy, especially if we have a certfied copy of the COLB. Thats all a court needs to do, order Obamas long form published, we won't need any other remedy.
And you know, if we do not de-elect Obama, what are the alternatives? The courts will have had their opportunity, and the people will enforce the constitution in their own way.
Its all good. Birthers are patriots. Wrong Siders? Well lets just say they are on the blue dress, wrong side of history.Poor confused little sheep, bleating their self importance into the darkening night.
Thanks for the ping, STAR.