Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We The People Versus Our Lawless Elected Officials
self ^ | May 21, 2009 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 05/21/2009 5:57:28 AM PDT by Uncle Sham

We the People have a serious problem facing us. We have an out of control government hell-bent on further enslaving us at breakneck speed. This government displays a piece of paper every now and then called the Constitution, mostly at election time in an effort to comfort us into thinking that somehow it is being obeyed. We know differently, don't we?

We have a person pretending to be President who has yet to prove to me or to anyone else for that matter that he is actually eligible to serve under the provisions of Article two of the Constitution. Our elected officials, as you will see below, are REQUIRED to ensure that he is in fact eligible. It is our job as citizens to put the heat on them (our elected officials) to do their primary job as defined in the Constituion, to "support it". We have the legal case to do this and I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.

Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:

" ”3. 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; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President electshall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19

TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “

Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:

” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:

The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.

The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.

There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?

If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.

Based upon the above, I conclude that:

1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.

2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.

3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: akaobama; birth; birthcertificate; certificate; certifigate; constitution; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
We need to focus this thread on looking at all avenues of approach as it pertains to legally charging, convicting, and removing elected officials who refuse to obey their oath of office to the Constitution itself. What can they be charged with and how best should these charges be brought? If we did this nation-wide, it would have a larger impact than the Tea parties.
1 posted on 05/21/2009 5:57:28 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Keep this train rolling! I’m sending this to my Senators and Rep. If they get enough of this they may actually “think” about doing something.


2 posted on 05/21/2009 6:12:48 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

They get by with this because they think that they have us in a position of fear. Also, if you look around the country, 50% of the fools out there think that this is cute. Most of them do not work nor do they file taxes. But they get to vote. Until such time as you all gather and confront these elected fools, let me highlight that—CONFRONT—. Until such time as they believe that they are going to be held individually accountable in some way that makes them fear for their being, this is going to continue.

I dont know what it is going to take, but there are enough devious and legal minds here that someone should be able to come up with something. These elected fools have to be made to respect the people. Right now they think that they are your owners and managers. They think that once they get elected it empowers them to control you. We have allowed that to happen. Just look at the damn-fool bills and laws that have been introduced lately. Also look at how they have been able with devious means to spike bills such as Texas’ sovereignty bill. Why? Because it would take them off the public tit..........wasnt that the intent in the first place?

Folks have to make a decision whether they are going to stand up or whether they will remain sheeple. It all begins with catching these politicians when they come home and scaring the fool out of them.


3 posted on 05/21/2009 6:16:04 AM PDT by Concho ( No Birth Certificate-No Census!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Good threat. Pinging for later when I can read ALL of it!!!!!


4 posted on 05/21/2009 6:48:57 AM PDT by blueyon (It is worth taking a stand even if you are standing alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Fighting Communism all over the globe for most of the 20th century seems in retrospect like a wasted effort now we have a Communist usurper as President.


5 posted on 05/21/2009 10:09:02 AM PDT by TexasRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
"Keep this train rolling! I’m sending this to my Senators and Rep. If they get enough of this they may actually “think” about doing something."

Don't count on them thinking, it's legal pressure from us that we need to make them think about.

6 posted on 05/21/2009 4:18:50 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic
"Fighting Communism all over the globe for most of the 20th century seems in retrospect like a wasted effort now we have a Communist usurper as President."

That's why it's up to us, the plain ordinary folks who've made this country what we all should be trying like hell to preserve. All those young men and women who DIED to help us keep our freedom are counting on us to fight the fight. Pressing legal charges against cowardly representatives is one way to begin. We are looking into how to do so here in our area. Start a movement to do the same in your area. We can and WILL win this.

In the meantime, spread the word.

7 posted on 05/21/2009 4:23:57 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, this is one thing we can ALL start doing. If there are legal types who have ideas about how best to approach this, it would be of great benefit to this effort.


8 posted on 05/21/2009 4:27:10 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

9 posted on 05/21/2009 4:29:28 PM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; ctdonath2; abb; STE=Q; frog in a pot; Atom Smasher; MHGinTN; rrstar96; ...

a ping for your valued input.

Congressman Billybob, You expressed skepticism at whether or not one of our representatives would stand up for the Constitution on this issue. What can We the People do to such a coward, legally, because of this refusal?


10 posted on 05/21/2009 6:57:15 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

This is an excellent issue you have put together.

The first thing that needs to be done is to change the status quo. These idiots in the WH aren’t blind, they aren’t daft, they aren’t even stupid....they know exactly what they’re doing. They are stomping on the Constitution because they have the power to do it. They don’t care about values, principles, and the like. I’ll guarantee that half of them don’t even give a crapt about our country. All they care about is enriching themselves, and making sure they get voted back in. This comes from all the money, greed, and corruption that each of them has their fingers in. So, who in power is around to stop them?

Your read is excellent in that yes, everyone should keep sending this to officials that might change their minds & do something. Keep sending it over & over, like 3-4 times, if not more, a day. Right now might be the best time, because there are little divisions going on right now everywhere in the house, and in the same party.

Another thing, equally important, is to expose the corrupt corporations that are giving members in the WH their power. I’ve recently heard that the FBI is more than happy to go after subsidiaries of ACORN. (Just tonight it was said that Theresa Heinz Kerry has contributed over 8 million dollars to Tides...a subsidiary of ACORN). I think we are going to find that a lot of our politicians got their hands in this somewhere.


11 posted on 05/21/2009 7:21:31 PM PDT by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: abb
Here's some information concerning Oath Of Office Violations and the Consequences thereof.

Oath of Office Law Information

From the Link:

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “ advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. Alright, this is a start.

12 posted on 05/21/2009 7:22:10 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Continuing from my last post, I believe we can change the status quo in 2010. It’s obvious that even with legal help, the higher courts aren’t going for it. Changing the bodies, and then going after them is what I suggest. I just pray we can hold out that long.

Expose BillyBob for what he is. Expose all of them. We need to get the word out so the vote brings the change we need.


13 posted on 05/21/2009 7:29:35 PM PDT by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher
Election time is far away. Proving that your local elected official has broken his Oath of office and taking him to court for it can be started as soon as you read the Constitution.

Here’s the U.S. Constitution

The eligibility case I've outlined above will work. I'm quite sure that there are hundreds more to find and go after. Thanks for the help!

14 posted on 05/21/2009 7:56:56 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
Bookmarking and on guard.

Us against them and all that jazz.

Its on, and the political class is facing a culling.

15 posted on 05/21/2009 7:58:56 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I suggest 2010 because I haven’t been able to find any attorneys here, in Michigan, who think my case is valid. I have quoted areas of the Constitution that we all know have been violated, but I’m told that it isn’t enough to prove wrong doing.

We have a gov here who is in bed with everyone, I even hear she might be looking to win the house next election. The WH @ssholes got their hands in our car companies here and God knows what else.

If you can find legal help in your state, please ping me & I will get a hold of your legal people, and ask them if they can recommend anyone to us here in Michigan. Surely these attorneys will know others like them.

Like I said, these were Const. Attorneys, or so they say. It was like I was talking to a wall. I even went as far as approaching a law professor at the University I attend, to see if they would consider taking this on....no go!

So let us all know what legal institution or firm you get in with, and maybe they can direct us in who to talk to in our states.


16 posted on 05/21/2009 8:48:26 PM PDT by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher
It's up to We the People. If we are unable to locate attorneys, we must press forward on our own. If we can kick start this legal storm it will turn into a whirlwind that will wipe the slate clean of EVERYONE in it's path to restoring Constitutional law in this nation.

The founding fathers put us in charge of our government. It's time we stand up and claim ownership. Everyone reading this should be looking into all legal options for getting rid of their representatives who are OPENLY defying the Constitution. You can't win a war with evil if you refuse to fight.

17 posted on 05/22/2009 5:20:20 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to **ADVOCATE** the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”(EMPHASES MINE)

The problem is that, at face, — unless we can prove otherwise — their culpability appears to be ‘tacit’ rather than ‘actively’ participating to overthrow or subvert the constitution.

It’s an ‘act’ of omission analogous to a policeman ‘looking the other way’ when a crime is being committed and, therefore, hard to prove.

In short: a ‘conspiracy’ of silence.

We need hard EVIDENCE from someone ‘high up’ who would be willing to ‘rat out’ the party or parties directly involved ... EVIDENCE that would prove that government officials in Congress WILLFULLY — and ACTIVELY — violated their oaths of office.

There MUST be a ‘deep throat’, somewhere, willing to help.

Did somebody mention the FBI?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655.html

STE=Q


18 posted on 05/22/2009 1:01:49 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

I have an answer for you. It’s in the Constitution and I’ll post it a little later tonight. Read that document. We have multiple attack points from which to press legal cases.


19 posted on 05/22/2009 3:44:34 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
"It’s an ‘act’ of omission analogous to a policeman ‘looking the other way’ when a crime is being committed and, therefore, hard to prove."

This is not what we are facing here. What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us.

I'm working on another angle of attack as well as this one, all from a Constitutional perspective. Stay tuned.

20 posted on 05/22/2009 9:00:51 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
I have an answer for you. It’s in the Constitution and I’ll post it a little later tonight. Read that document.

I will!

Thanks for your reply.

STE=Q

21 posted on 05/23/2009 7:07:44 AM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher
"So let us all know what legal institution or firm you get in with, and maybe they can direct us in who to talk to in our states."

Find conservative judges and conservative Federal prosecutors and present this to them. I'm not getting the responses you seem to be getting. I'm trying to find out what all of the options are for REMOVING my representatives from office.

22 posted on 05/23/2009 10:30:52 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Thank you very much for that. I’ll keep looking.


23 posted on 05/23/2009 11:54:30 AM PDT by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
"The problem is that, at face, — unless we can prove otherwise — their culpability appears to be ‘tacit’ rather than ‘actively’ participating to overthrow or subvert the constitution."

"In short: a ‘conspiracy’ of silence."

Ignoring any portion of the Constitution is equivalent to ignoring all of it. It is not now, nor ever has been a "pick and choose" document. The document itself in Article Six says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Another passage from Article Four, Section four says:

"Section 4 - Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Now, what does this passage mean to you? To me it means that we as a nation are a "representative republic" whereby our wishes and demands are represented by someone who "represents" them on our behalf. This passage "guarantees" to every state that we will be "represented". Think about this guarantee for a moment. Are we being represented, if our legislator is absent during votes? Are we being represented if our legislator doesn't know the content of that which he cast votes for or against? What's the difference? This goes beyond just the oath of office because now this "guarantee" is also being compromised.

24 posted on 05/23/2009 1:12:15 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
"Section 4 - Republican government -- The United States shall GUARANTEE to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." (Emphases Mine)

Believe it or not, I took your advice and Article Four, Section Four, jumped out at me!

... And I did a little research, as follows:

Republic (n)

1: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also: a nation or other political unit having such a government

2: a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to VOTE and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to LAW; also: a nation or other political unit having such a form of government(Emphases Mine)

Notice #2: The SUPREME POWER of 'The Citizens' is transfered by the agency of the citizens VOTE to Officers and REPRESENTATIVES who then become empowered to govern -- on behalf of the citizens -- according to LAW.

Now once we EMPOWER the aforementioned REPRESENTATIVES to govern on our behalf, through the agency of our VOTE; the most obvious way to dis-empower them, is ALSO, though the agency of our vote.

I also found this little "gem" as follows:

GUARANTEE OF REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT

The first clause of this section, in somewhat different language, was contained in the Virginia Plan introduced in the Convention and was obviously attributable to Madison. 321 Through the various permutations into its final form, 322 the object of the clause seems clearly to have been more than an authorization for the Federal Government to protect States against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, 323 a power seemingly already conferred in any case. 324 No one can now resurrect the full meaning of the clause and intent which moved the Framers to adopt it, but with the exception of the reliance for a brief period during Reconstruction the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored. 325

In Luther v. Borden, 326 the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that "it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character..."

So -- according to the Supreme Court -- CONGRESS must GUARANTEE: A Republican form of Government.

The KEY word here is GUARANTEE.

So my question is this:

What LAWS have Congress passed in order to "guarantee" a Republican Form of Government?

Who will oversee this "GUARANTEE" if the Supreme Court won't!

THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT (copy and past)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fingodwetrustblog%2Ecom%2F2009%2F03%2F28%2Fa%2Dconstitutional%2Drepublic%2Dor%2Da%2Ddemocracy%2F&feature=player_embedded

Excerpt:

When Ben Franklin exited the constitutional convention he was asked by a woman:

'Sir, what have you given us?'

He replied 'A Republic Ma am, if you can keep it'

Apparently, the burden is on "We the People" to restore the republic, before it's too late!

We must keep the issue of Obama's hiding his citizenship status -- in plain sight of The United States Congress -- alive!

STE=Q

25 posted on 05/23/2009 7:45:48 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
"Now once we EMPOWER the aforementioned REPRESENTATIVES to govern on our behalf, through the agency of our VOTE; the most obvious way to dis-empower them, is ALSO, though the agency of our vote."

Our "vote" cannot be the only way because if they want to ignore the Constitution, whats to keep them from simply ignoring the parts of it that require elections? We MUST and investigate and define all avenues of removal of our "public servants". Good digging, though.

26 posted on 05/23/2009 8:16:47 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

BUMP!


27 posted on 05/25/2009 5:05:53 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Thanks for the bump. This issue deserves it.


28 posted on 05/25/2009 12:09:58 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; Fred Nerks; ETL; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; stockpirate; ...
We The People Versus Our Lawless Elected Officials

Pinging The List.

29 posted on 05/25/2009 12:19:33 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

From the very beginning of obama’s refusal to show his BC, I mentioned a class action lawsuit. For some reason I was told it was not possible. Say 5 million people, getting together and paying a dollar each for a attorney to do one thing, get the BC. What attorney would say no to that?

what are the legal terms of a class action lawsuit? We have enough people online to do this. Look at the tea party participant numbers.


30 posted on 05/25/2009 12:26:03 PM PDT by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atom Smasher

There are attorneys and groups who fight for the people. I know there is a big one in Washington.

http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/casesbytopic_Date.cfm

One of the lawsuits filed was over Franklin Raines and line item veto. What? Imagine that. I have read one of the cases the attorneys fought and won. His name was Greg Beck but he does cases about online fair use laws. From my reading they seem totally involved in citizens rights as according to the laws.

http://www.tlpj.org/ I know nothing about this one.

There is another one that I can’t remember the name of. They fought for all of those college students who got stung uploading songs.

Why would these non profits not look into this? The other problem is someone has to have asked already.


31 posted on 05/25/2009 12:50:25 PM PDT by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C.

Anyone have the Pelosi signed document she vetted obama properly?


32 posted on 05/25/2009 12:53:04 PM PDT by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OafOfOffice

I don’t think we need a class-action lawsuit because those representatives of ours have the “standing” by virtue of their oath of office in Article Six of the Constitution. It is up to us, the little folks to put LEGAL pressure on each of our representatives to live up to their oath of office or just admit that the Constitution is worthless. Guess what. If it’s worthless, they can no longer claim powers granted to them by it. We don’t have to respect it either. Let’s put them in that corner.


33 posted on 05/25/2009 1:12:51 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Mike Gallagher had a program today on the ‘missing BC’.


34 posted on 05/25/2009 1:28:20 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Haven’t we tried to do that? Look at all the money spent for full page ads and the lawsuits. What the h*ll is going on? I am beginning to think this was one big conspiracy to turn our nation into socialism and our GOP are a part of it.

After Orly confronted two SCOTUS judges did they ever answer her?

Update me what you figure out. Cheney is on the lawsuit to answer June 21st.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/lawyers/mario-apuzzo/

I think a lot has been done to corner everyone unless they dumb, deaf and blind.


35 posted on 05/25/2009 2:11:07 PM PDT by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

http://www.aunetwork.tv/

this website has weekly teleconference on obama’s eligibility. You can call in and ask questions or give your ideas. They all work together once they have a plan too. The past calls are available.


36 posted on 05/25/2009 2:13:48 PM PDT by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
...his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw..."

And therein lies the problem in a huge nutshell. His job is NOT to prevent crime. His job is to investigate the crime afterwards, and prosecute the criminal(s) if there is enough proof a criminal can/will be found guilty. I THINK doesn't get it. A PROVEN, ACTUAL crime has got to be committed first or a policeman cannot act, and it must be pursued as a crime by criminal investigation. There must be independent PROOF that a criminal is guilty because a criminal cannot be forced to incriminate him/herself.
As I said before, the Fifth Amendment has created a paradox in this situation. I don't have time right now to go into this deeper, but I will later.

37 posted on 05/25/2009 3:28:08 PM PDT by MestaMachine (Will global warming make hell hotter? Or is hell freezing over? That is the ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
I posted

"What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us."

To which you posted

"His job is NOT to prevent crime."

So, lets see now, you are of the opinion that a policeman's job is NOT to prevent crime. That's ridiculous, almost "Obama-like" thinking.

I guess if someone takes out a gun in front of a policeman and starts shooting bystanders, he is supposed to wait till everything is over and the gun is emptied before he attempts to apprehend the shooter. That's what YOU are suggesting.

I am suggesting that such a policeman would be sent to prison, deservedly so. If our representatives refuse to obey their oaths of office as it pertains to the Twentieth amendment, section three of the Constitution, they also should be legally prosecuted. The fifth amendment has NOTHING to do with this.

38 posted on 05/25/2009 6:55:03 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
"I THINK doesn't get it. A PROVEN, ACTUAL crime has got to be committed first"

Another thing, the Twentieth amendment, section three CLEARLY requires that the person wanting to ascend to the office of President is the one responsible for providing qualification evidence. We the people don't have to do any "thinking" about whether or not this was in fact done. We the people can, according to our very own Constitution can DEMAND that it be done and DEMAND as well the proof that it was done. Our reps are in for some heat until they obey the document from which they themselves claim power to govern over us.

39 posted on 05/25/2009 7:02:43 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; All
"I guess if someone takes out a gun in front of a policeman and starts shooting bystanders, he is supposed to wait till everything is over and the gun is emptied before he attempts to apprehend the shooter. That's what YOU are suggesting"

I sugggest you read the above quote again and realize how utterly ridiculous it is. I would also suggest that guns don't kill people, people do, and if a guy pulls a gun in front of a cop, he deserves to be shot dead on the spot...before he shoots anyone.

So, lets see now, you are of the opinion that a policeman's job is NOT to prevent crime. That's ridiculous, almost "Obama-like" thinking.

Listen. I posted what is LEGAL. You really have no call to insult me like this.
It is NOT a policeman's job to prevent a crime in the thinking stage. THAT is obama-like thinking. Many dead wives or girlfriends could tell you that, if they were able to speak. But they can't so allow me to tell you why they can't.
You must have read or seen at least once in your life, that a woman was murdered by a boyfriend, ex-husband, whatever, AFTER she had obtained a court order, a LEGAL restraining order, because she felt her life in danger. Often there were threats, phone calls, stalking, but no proof and NO ARREST. And if there was an arrest, it was for a misdemeanor and a couple days in jail, then out again. The next thing you know, she's dead. Why???
The attempted bombing in New York this past week. It took them a YEAR from the "thinking stage" to an actual crime being committed before they could make an arrest because you can't arrest someone for SAYING they want to, or will at some point in the future, commit a crime.
In your example,you said you think someone is going to commit a crime, so the cop goes and arrests someone who has done nothing yet. How long do you think that cop would have a job?
All the cop can do is watch and wait...UNTIL a crime happens.

If our representatives refuse to obey their oaths of office as it pertains to the Twentieth amendment, section three of the Constitution, they also should be legally prosecuted. The fifth amendment has NOTHING to do with this.

And who is going to prosecute them and for WHAT? What reason did they have to believe that a crime of this astonishing magnitude could be/would be/was hatched and undertaken in such a breathtaking, ingenious way that to this very moment, there is NO SUBJECTIVE PROOF that it actually happened?
Just for shlitz and giggles, though, there is also a little thing called pattern of practice. These people routinely break their oaths and are never prosecuted for it. They pass bills they never read. They take bribes. They do "favors" for contributors. They drink and drive and get away with murder. They do drugs and say I'm sorry. They seduce interns in the whitehouse and sell the Lincoln Bedroom. They commit fraud and perjure themselves. They routinely leak top secret material even when it puts Americans in harm's way. They commit treason. They make backroom deals that sell out their constituents but "We the People" keep electing them.
So again, I ask you. WHO is going to prosecute them and for what?
For NOT knowing a crime was being committed?
How many people who have EVER run for president were NOT natural born citizens of this country? Were they to act completely differently with this one, a sitting Senator, one of THEM???
The CRIME here is Obama himself knowingly, wilfully, and intentionally running for an office he KNEW he could not qualify for. But PROVE IT!!!
You can "demand" all day and the Fifth does apply because you can NOT force a person to incriminate themselves and the crime was already in motion when he declared his candidacy. He can't even be prosecuted for the fraudulent COLB because he did not forge it, never personally acknowledged it or disavowed it, and he can not be forced to. All he has to do is remain silent and obedient.
I fear this man more than you can imagine, but I fear those who hatched this plot ever so much more because it IS ingenious. It is so TRULY evil that whoever is behind it would no more think twice about you or me or my child, let alone this country, than the man in the moon.
Obama is a one trick pony. He does what he is told. The power behind him is evil personified.

Now,if you think this post is worth nothing more than a backhanded insult, go for it, but maybe someone else might be interested. Thanks ever so much.

40 posted on 05/25/2009 10:18:22 PM PDT by MestaMachine (Will global warming make hell hotter? Or is hell freezing over? That is the ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; Beckwith; Fred Nerks; Iowan; null and void; Polarik; BP2; Candor7; Cicero; ...
He can't even be prosecuted for the fraudulent COLB because he did not forge it, never personally acknowledged it or disavowed it, and he can not be forced to. All he has to do is remain silent and obedient.
41 posted on 05/25/2009 11:05:46 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; LucyT; Beckwith; Fred Nerks; Iowan; null and void; Polarik; BP2; Candor7; Cicero
How many people who have EVER run for president were NOT natural born citizens of this country? Were they to act completely differently with this one, a sitting Senator, one of THEM???

We've become inured to it, it's been going on since the 1960s. Starting with Barry Goldwater (born in U.S. territory, not yet a state). Continuing on with George Romney (born in Mexico). "Child of U.S. citizen parents, born on U.S. soil?" -- have we defined this other than in oral tradition? I know I was taught it in high school, but is it on the books anywhere?

And since the 1960s, we've had Bill Richardson (son of "immigrants" but did they ever become citizens?), John McCain (U.S. citizen parents, but he was born in Panama), etc. People are talking about Bobby Jindal as Presidential material, yes he was born here, but his parents weren't citizens at his birth.

We have to be consistent. And because we aren't consistent, we can't stand as a united front on this matter.

There are so many examples of Presidential candidates whose natural-born status was iffy at best, it's not at all surprising that one finally slipped through the cracks.

42 posted on 05/25/2009 11:24:06 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; MestaMachine
"What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us."

Well, the problem is if there's 'a camera rolling' we need to get the film out of the camera so that we can PROVE that the policeman WILLFULLY 'turned his head' -- even though he KNEW a crime was being committed.

The reality is we MUST have hard evidence that transcends our suspicion that the 'cop' is corrupt.

Now add to that that not only is the cop, corrupt, but the whole precinct... maybe all the way to the chief of police!

Now the "cops" in this analogy represent the congress and other leaders that we empower.

Some may be corrupted and some may be incompetent and some may have just assumed -- like most of us did at first -- that Obama was properly vetted.

So we need to show through records, documents, and other evidence, that certain people KNEW that there were serious problems with Obama's documentation and WILLFULLY choose to conceal the information.

We need some investigative reporting from the inside... a "smoking gun," so to speak.

In the meantime we have to do everything we can to keep this issue alive until the public at large begins to ask:

Why won't Obama release his vault birth certificate and other vital recards?

What is he hiding?

At that point others -- such as Rush Limbaugh, for instance -- that are now afraid to broach the subject of Obama's eligibility for fear of being labeled a kook, or of the "fringe," may get the courage to bring the issue to the forefront.

STE=Q

43 posted on 05/25/2009 11:39:00 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
We have to be consistent. And because we aren't consistent, we can't stand as a united front on this matter.

This is part of the pattern and practice of which I spoke.
An example of this, simple, but analogous, is a lease or Landlord/Tenant contract. The Lease is a legally binding document that spells out what the landlord expects, permits, or does NOT permit such as:
No Pets
No smoking
No children
But if a tenant decides to have a cat, and the landlord sees it but says nothing the first time, nothing the second time, etc., he can not decide 6 months later to evict the tenant for having a cat, nor can he force the tenant to be rid of the cat unless it has done something outrageous and caused damage that is not normal for a cat.
He has given tacit permission by saying nothing for too long. No judge will find for the landlord in a case like this.
And so it goes.
We have allowed politicians to get away with literal murder and done nothing for too long. It didn't affect us personally. NOW, we are ALL affected, but were silent for so long, they do not hear us when we speak, and if they do, they don't care.
We have given them the power, and they are using it.

44 posted on 05/26/2009 12:03:31 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Will global warming make hell hotter? Or is hell freezing over? That is the ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
"But if a tenant decides to have a cat, and the landlord sees it but says nothing the first time, nothing the second time, etc., he can not decide 6 months later to evict the tenant for having a cat, nor can he force the tenant to be rid of the cat unless it has done something outrageous and caused damage that is not normal for a cat."

You are 100% correct.

But there is also another principle where a Judge may hold someone to a "higher" standard because of their superior knowledge and expertise in a certain field.

For instance a policeman or a lawyer -- as officers of the court -- would be expected to have Superior knowledge of the law.

I would think the above would also apply to our elected officials in congress.

Certainly they would have a fiduciary relationship with their constituents based on the 'trust' of the later.

The public has a reasonable expectation that the aforementioned public servants will not violate the public trust.

Of course dishonesty and fraud are grounds to void a contract.

Therefore, a "pattern" of fraud would not alter the contract (by analogy) -- it would void it.

STE=Q

45 posted on 05/26/2009 1:52:37 AM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
OK, first you posted

"His job is NOT to prevent crime. His job is to investigate the crime afterwards, and prosecute the criminal(s) if there is enough proof a criminal can/will be found guilty."Next, you posted

" I would also suggest that guns don't kill people, people do, and if a guy pulls a gun in front of a cop, he deserves to be shot dead on the spot...before he shoots anyone"

So in one instance the cop must wait for a crime to occur before getting involved, and in the other instance, he can "kill" someone BEFORE a "potential" crime might occur. Your argument doesn't make sense.

You posted as well

"It is so TRULY evil that whoever is behind it would no more think twice about you or me or my child, let alone this country, than the man in the moon."

Perhaps cowardice is what we are dealing with here on a MASSIVE scale. It's time that we as a nation either admit to this and do whatever we must to overcome it, or it's over. Our elected representatives are our first line of defense in enforcing the one thing that protects all of us, the Constitution. If it has been reduced to a farce, it's time we find out once and for all.

46 posted on 05/26/2009 5:43:43 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
Correction:

I should have written at the end of post #45:

Dishonesty and fraud, in a contract, would be unenforcible in court. Nor would a "pattern" of fraud be enforcible in court -- even if it were "tacitly" accepted.

STE=Q

47 posted on 05/26/2009 8:00:44 AM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
But there is also another principle where a Judge may hold someone to a "higher" standard because of their superior knowledge and expertise in a certain field.
For instance a policeman or a lawyer -- as officers of the court -- would be expected to have Superior knowledge of the law.
I would think the above would also apply to our elected officials in congress.

Surely, you jest.
How many Congresspeople do YOU "trust?" How many do you think have superior knowledge of the Constitution they so grievously flaunt? What part of the Constitution says we should have a permananent sitting Congress?
I would point out that even if it was true, they make their own rules and protect themselves against us, against the law, with no regard for the Constitution, us, or the country they are supposed to serve.
In point of fact, these critters pick and appoint the very judges who might be called upon to later judge them.
If fraud was enough to send these swine packing, the Capitol would be deserted.

At any rate, this is far afield from the problem we face today. This country is wounded and bleeding profusely. SOMETHING must be done.
SOMEONE knows the truth. Someone has the evidence. We have to look beyond the government and find the head of the snake. It still requires some measure of cooperation from those who have avoided it thus far. I don't see it happening.
We have just seen the National Archives robbed for the second time. BOTH times, the missing contents would expose and/or incriminate the Clintons. What is stashed away in the Clinton Library?
I believe that is the root of this. AND I believe that Bill Clinton is the most dangerous man on earth bar none.

48 posted on 05/26/2009 8:08:48 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Will global warming make hell hotter? Or is hell freezing over? That is the ???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: thecodont; MestaMachine; LucyT; Beckwith; Fred Nerks; Iowan; null and void; BP2; Candor7; Cicero
You're missing the point here with Obama. Everyone in America has conveniently forgotten about the first eligibility lawsuit brought against a Presidential candidate, namely Hollander v. McCain, filed on March 12, 2008 by the DNC.

McCain showed his original birth certificate to the Senate, and they voted to verify his NBC status, even though McCain is stll technically not an NBC. However, both of his parents were US citizens who were stationed abroad in the service of this country, and McCain made no effort, whatsoever, to hide any of his documentation.

Obama, on the other hand, has never proven where he was born and to whom he was born. He has done everything in his power to keep his original birth certificate from being seen, and as you already know, he has also suppressed the release of every other piece of supporting documentation.

WE've never had a situation where a Presidential candidate, not only was born in another country, not only had dual or triple citizenship, but who clearly has allegiances that are not to this country.

What makes Obama ineligible to be POTUS is not just the lack of his NBC status, but also his criminal behavior, which should have kept him from the White House and landed him in the Big House.

From now on, and for all elections to come, we will be applying the Rule of Law consistently in demanding that all candidates prove their eligibiity.

However, that will not stop those who oppose the Rule of Law and will be seeking to break it consistently.

49 posted on 05/26/2009 8:37:27 AM PDT by Polarik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

bttt


50 posted on 05/26/2009 8:49:54 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson