Posted on 03/08/2011 8:28:49 PM PST by RobinMasters
Is there any ONE state that has ACTUALLY PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW an eligibility requirement?
From what I've seen, they've all chickened out.
Atty Mario Apuzzo will be on the Peter Boyle Radio Show...[Wed. 9, March, 10 AM EST]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2685853/posts
If something like this is the case, and the truth comes out, the media will spin furiously that Obama was victimized and hounded and not focus on the lie that was central to Obama’s biography and candidacy.
He might still be eligible (although his Indonesian records merit scrutiny), but he'd be damaged goods. How damaged? Again, look at how the media treated Clinton. But it would still be a blow. (no pun intended)
But I think something will happen to bring the facts to light, or at least to raise suspicions further on the secrecy.
“What if the reason he’s fighting to keep his BC hidden is because his father ISN’T the guy from Kenya but some local nut job and for obvious reasons he doesn’t want anyone to know?”
It appears to me that communism has come out of the closet in much the same way homosexuality has come out of the closet. Being a socialist or a communist does not seem to matter to many people any longer.
What would be exposed is his promotion of lies as to his origins to the American public.
Everyone likes to claim there would be riots in the streets.
I don’t get the riots part.
I think that is an excuse someone is using to avoid taking out the trash.
We had riots in the inner cities once before.
So what? which is worse, a few riots, people killed, stores burned, law and order re-established and lessons learned? Or an illegal alien president who is destroying the country entirely.
If Obama remains in power, destroying the economy and the rule of law, people will die all over the world as America loses its power as a world policeman. Pirates will control the high seas. China will invade Taiwan. And millions of people will starve, here and abroad.
Better to have a few riots and put them down than to abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and Western Civilization, out of sheer cowardice.
I entirely agree. What’s a few riots compared to the destruction of the rule of law, the Constitution, and a fiend destroying our country as fast as he possibly can.
Cowardice is as bad as outright evil, as it supports and allows evil.
Thus my tagline.
One of the four Aristotelian moral virtues. And Justice is another.
Used to be that Virtues were taught to children to teach them proper human behavior and mentality. Something to live up to, a model for their own lives. Historical figures who embodied certain virtues lives were taught as examples.
Now virtue is scorned and trashed.
The end of what we call “civilization” is happening as we write, and real civilization based on Virtue, Truth and Morality must be born again. All the truths are there.
Your Constitution is flawed,
The Judiciary are largely appointed by the politicians. The Judiciary are not independent, they answer to their masters.
Equally bad, the Congress controls the executive, not only by laws, but by controlling the borrowing power, and borrowing was not envisaged by the Founders.
Unfortuately the people in government who could changes things now will not because they will lose face. They have been covering up for so long.
Judges can be impeached by the legislative branch, but I have never heard of this happening.
The Judiciary are not independent, they answer to their masters.
I'll respectfully disagree; when a candidate is appointed and becomes a Supreme, they do not have to answer to anybody.
Equally bad, the Congress controls the executive, not only by laws, but by controlling the borrowing power, and borrowing was not envisaged by the Founders.
I'll still believe judges are the problem. Think about it for a moment. We see and hear from our politicians. They are very visible.
On the other hand, how often do you see and hear from members of the Supremes, as well as other judges? Almost never. Judges are usually faceless and something of an enigma.
and borrowing was not envisaged by the Founders
The Founders could not envision everything. It's impossible.
They were wise enough to recognize this fact, so the provision for this problem was to create the idea of Amendments.
Greetings from across the pond.
>The ONLY way to get rid of a sitting President is through Congress. It is in the Constitution, folks.
So then you claim that any requirement the Constitution puts upon someone actually being President is irrelevant and/or illegitimate?
>All these lawyers — they’re wasting their time and talent on the Supreme Court, and it’s all for nothing because they, the Supreme Court justices, just don’t have the constitutional authority to do anything in this instance.
What of the above?
>Equally bad, the Congress controls the executive, not only by laws, but by controlling the borrowing power, and borrowing was not envisaged by the Founders.
This might actually be an issue if our Congress had the balls to try to pass some truly needful legislation or [authorized] Congressional Declaration {like, say, declaring a state of invasion and allowing the use of the military and militias to violently kill/expel the invaders}.... but as it is they mostly play games and shudder in the corner when the Executive or Judiciary say something because they’ve been so conditioned to taking it in the Arse.
Leo Donofrio went through the courts trying to get a Supreme Court hearing on Obama legitimacy. He discovered the hard way that only congress can remove a president but that body delegated the power to remove a ursurper, via Quo warranto, to the District Court, Washington, D.C.
This is neither irrelevant nor illegitimate, it is just the way our Constitution works. (The President is an elected office, therefore political in origin, and he must be removed that way - by representatives of the people.) Unless we have moral and honorable people in our government, the Constitution doesn’t matter.
That’s when the 2nd Amendment kicks in, savvy? I’ve answered you posits.
I direct your attention to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2.
"The Congress shall have Power ... To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"
OK. Your narrow point is accepted. However, the Congress uses borrowing powers to control by payment or non payment the line by line policy detail of US Government, whereas the Founders envisaged that there should be no continuing borrowing except in time of war. The deficit is the way the lawyers and the mob have got hold of US policy.
Interestingly such “....agreements are only “binding on the conscience of the sovereign”, as the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a creditor from suing in court if the government reneges its commitment.”
“The common practice is to look at national debt and deficits by President. However this practice ignores the role of Congress. It takes actions by Congress to raise the debt ceiling (allowing issuance of debt) and Congress must pass all budget bills. Tracking deficits and debt increases by control of Congress gives a much different picture than by tracking by President. The U.S. Congress was dominated by Republicans from 1861 - 1931, a period when 47 peacetime surpluses were experienced and only 13 peacetime deficits. Democrats dominated the Congress from 1933 to 1994. During that time only 7 peace time surpluses were experienced. The last budget passed by a Democrat controlled Congress to finish with a surplus came in 1969.
The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 surpluses and only 2 deficits. The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the the War of 1812. In the first 20 years following the War of 1812, 18 surpluses were experienced and The US paid off 99.97% of its debt.
The second dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. In the following 47 years America returned to the practice of running surpluses during times of peace experiencing 36 surpluses and only 11 deficits. During this period 55% of the US national debt was paid off.
The next period of major growth in debt came during WWI reaching $25.5 billion at its conclusion. It was followed by 11 straight surpluses and saw the debt reduced by 36%.
The buildup and involvement in World War II plus social programs during the F.D. Roosevelt (because of the Great Depression) and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and ‘40s caused a sixteen-fold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.
After this period, the growth of the gross public debt closely matched the rate of inflation where it tripled in size from $260 billion in 1950 to around $909 billion in 1980. Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The net public debt quintupled in nominal terms.
In nominal dollars the net public debt rose and then fell between 1992 and 2000 from $3T in 1992 to $3.4T in 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[2] rising from 57.0% of GDP to 74.5% of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March 2009 that under the Obama administration net public debt would rise from 40.8% of GDP in 2008 to 70.1% in 2012.[7] Gross debt did rise to about 84.4% of GDP at the end of Fiscal Year 2009 and to about 93.4% of GDP at the end of Fiscal Year 2010.”
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.