Nonsense.
You do not understand the law.
You do not understand politics.
You do not understand history.
You do not understand the American people.
It won’t happen.
I obviously know far more about the law than you. This is a legal, a constitution issue, not political. No President has committed the crimes that BO has committed so history has no bearing on the case against BO either.
I obviously know far more about the law than you. This is a legal, a constitution issue, not political. No President has committed the crimes that BO has committed so history has no bearing on the case against BO either.
Mark Levin: “The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.”
What do you know about history? Ever heard of John Mithell?
Looks like Eric Holder is afraid history is going to repeat itself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2650233/posts?q=1&;page=108#108
On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the White House horrors. The sentence was later reduced to one to four years by United States district court Judge John J. Sirica.
BO is NOT constitutionally qualified to be POTUS regardless of where he was born because by his own admission his dad was a British/Kenyan citizen. SCOTUS has never defined the term “natural born citizen” to any category of citizenship other than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens of the United States of America.
There is a clear, concise and definitive statement in Vattel’s Law of Nations which was the principal legal treatise used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.
“The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens... it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The Venus Case, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212 paragraph from the French edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
Vattel…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Sixteen years later the Supreme Court…does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship contained in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings…
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case the Justice Gray cites the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.