Posted on 01/01/2010 6:27:46 AM PST by USALiberty
Folks, I often wondered what possessed Judge Carter in California to tell the world “he wanted to try this case on its merits” and then do a sudden 180 by dismissing the case with prejudice? Does the word “arrogance” come to mind? Did the justice system in California just reach the bottom of the barrel? The performance of Judge Carter was totally disgusting to watch.. Oh, and this whoop-ti-do you heard from folks that Carter would do the right thing because he is an EX-Marine.. what happened? Did honor and his oath get flushed on the way to the bench?
I went back and read some of Carter’s words and was stunned by his lack of knowledge of the Constitution or even a basic understanding of what is really going on here.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
So. actually you admit what I wrote is correct.
And you are wrong about only a President being vulnerable to impeachment. Many federal judges have been impeached by the US Congress. The only penalty if convicted in an impeachment is removal from office. Once removed though, other charges may be made by prosecutors.
See de facto officer doctrine.
You also wrote:
"Swearing in" does not make one President. You have to be qualified, win the majority of the electoral vote, take the oath, and wait until noon on January 20th following the elections. If you don't satisfy all of the above, you aren't President.
So then, according to you, McCain would be president even though he doesn't meet the "majority of the electoral vote" requirement which, also according to you, must be met to be president.
It is not the function of the courts to investigate.
See XIIth and XXth amendments. He would have the majority of the electoral votes cast for eligible candidates. The rest would have been wasted/invalid.
The "majority of the electoral votes" statement was somewhat of an oversimplification and a bit of a misstatement. The Constitution provides for the case where no one gets a majority.
From Amendments XII.
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
And from Amendment XX:
. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified
No, but that doesn't mean that I can't read the law, State Department manuals, etc.
To clarify, one must obey the laws while in a foreign country. But citizenship status under US law is not, necessarily, affected by those foreign laws. Actions taken by the individual under those foreign laws might.
But in Obummer's case, US law specifically provides that minors cannot renounce their citizenship, nor can their parents do it for them. Actually some minors can, but it must be done at a US embassy or consulate, and the consular officer must be convinced that the minor is acting of their own free will. They must be at least 16 in any event, so Obummer could not have renounced his US citizenship, for purposed of US law, during the period he lived in Indonesia. As an adult he could have, and the methods of doing so are less restrictive. Certain acts can do it. Traveling on a foreign passport probably would not do it, unless one traveled to the US on it. Accepting a scholarship as a foreign student? Maybe, maybe not.
I disagree. Because of fraud, the current presidential term never began.We have no president,and have not had one since the so called "inauguration."
And the pretender's actions have verified this fact.
We would be back to Bush until a new election could be held ASAP.
All of the Obama laws and executove orders would be deemed null and void ab initio.
Kenyan embassy? I said he could have, not that he did. By that I meant that at one time, he was eligible for one. He or the campaign admitted that he was a Kenyan citizen, at least until age 21, IIRC.
But it is their function to hear evidence, and to order additional evidence produced, if the early evidence meets the low standard of probable cause to believe...
They haven't heard any evidence, nor have they granted access to any other evidence that would be relevant to the case. What you are saying is that absolute proof is required. These have been civil cases where the actual standard should be preponderance of the evidence. But that's for final judgment, the standard for discovery is much lower.
That may very well be, but it does not then follow that Bush is still President.
What follows is that we have a mell of a hess.
But could he? He didn't live in Kenya and had never lived in Kenya, and had had no connection with the country for what, 15 years or more before he had traveled to Pakistan? Why would Kenya give him a passport? Why would he want one when a U.S. passport would have been easier to get?
ROTFLMAO!
And if we don't get to cleaning it up, the mess will become bloody as our soldiers die abroad and civilians at home die at jihadist hands, both pursuant to this things radical politically correct ideology which is just so much foolish daydreaming.
IMHO , people have no idea about the cost America is about to pay in blood and lives as never before , both at home and abroad.As a result, Obama will attempt to lead us into a period of islolationism and totalitarian control as a result. Its already started, and now Obama is attacking the Rasmussen Pollsters because they are telling the truth?
If we are not rid of these idiots soon, blood will flow in buckets and even then the measure of the lefts resolve will result in them saying sub rosa that it is good for conservative patriot soldiers to die so they won't have to deal with them at home.We have some very sick people in charge of our government and in the higher echelons of our military command.We need to rid ourselves of them.
The Obama Junta is actually full of sociopaths.Few people realize this yet.
We will have a mell of a hess, or the alternative is unthinkable. So far we are headed for the worst case scenario.
“It is not the function of the courts to investigate.”
Very well and succinctly put.
The section you quote refers to obtaining actual citizenship as an adult. That is to say, the intentional and successful completion of obtaining a different citizenship, not showing some kind of intent to do so.
On an unrelated note, it apparently isn't unusual for US citizens who do hold dual citizenship to travel on different passports. US law seems to only require they use their US passport when entering or leaving the US.
Article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/20dual.html
Then why do you think they've all been dismissed?
Numerous cases have been dismissed. The documented opinions as to why they have been dismissed are conventional and to be expected by anyone competent in legal processes. The suits to date have been simply barking up the wrong tree, and pretty obviously so.
I know everyone is all excited about quo warranto now, but don't be stunned if that goes nowhere, too.
LOL Just turned 65 in September. Frankly, I am grown up mister. I’m not the one defending finding out WHO Obama is and WHY the hell he is where he is. Make not mistake, voter fraud, put this creep over the top. He is not so popular with “normal” America that he could have won without the ACORN criminal enterprise behind him. Go call names to someone else. I care and I really care, what happens to my American relatives and many friends. AND sir/madam, I do have some experience in life. I have lived for 65 years now, raised children and have wonderful grandchildren who I am extremely concered about. I don’t WANT to see everything go to hell now which is what I see happening. YOU on on the other hand seem to want to let “nature” (man’s evil nature”) take it’s course. There we part ways. There is a legitimate court case here. I’m married to Lawyer, I have worked with him and other Lawyers FOR 23 years (so in the law) I know that certain things cannot be overlooked. For instance, your Constitution. In Canada, it would be the laws of the land plus our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To say that “We the People or more importantly, the Military, doesn’t have standing?” Sorry, not buying it. So please save the “grow up” stuff, doesn’t apply. IF we ever met in person we would likely be friends but as I told you before, I don’t care for the way you come off. You obviously don’t care for my opinion either but that’s the way it is. CO
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.