Posted on 04/09/2011 4:52:18 AM PDT by library user
If he is charged with unlawfully usurping the office of President, any cop on the street could do it. The real question is who will bring charges.
Really? Like the Secret Service are going to let "any cop" within 30 feet? This is delusional thinking.
Zero’s eligibility has never been determined. He was signed off by Nancy Pelosi at DNC. So we’ll hold her accountable for fraud. Eventually the greater public will understand he can never be President, but a foreign born usurper and undocumented illegal alien. But the bottom line is Constitutional crisis since the day he squatted in the White House, and it’s only going to get worse.
Oh the courts, media, congress, law enforcement don’t want to do anything for sure.
“Foreign born usurper?..uhm, can we talk about this later...”
Yes, let’s keep our comfy status quo.
Let’s see how the SS# handles several million citizens descending on Washington with tar and feathers. It’s up to the citizenry.
You mention Obama Sr./Stanley Ann summer break from school.
However, while Stanley Ann met Obama Sr. in Russian class Fall quarter at the University of Hawaii, she is not enrolled for the Spring quarter 1961. We know this from college transcripts:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/DunhamUnivofHawaiiFOIA.jpg
Obama Sr. was in college for the spring ‘61:
http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv47/MissieBessie/barackobamatranscript-1.jpg
Stanley Ann Dunham does not show up until Sept of 1961 at the University of Washington in transcripts:
With first date of instruction being Sept 25:
http://www.inthedays.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/090824uwcalendar.JPG.jpeg
Why did Stanley Ann, only pregnant as of October, and just starting enrollment fall quarter, not attend U of HI, spring quarter? Let’s think. She just turned 18, gets pregnant out of wedlock by a UK national of African race in Hawaii, it’s 1961.... how do you think the parents felt?
How would she feel attending classes pregnant around her peers?
Exactly.
Oh, and let us not forget...Obama Sr. is ALREADY MARRIED. Bigamy.
No, they left holiday winter break btwn semesters to his homeland, Kenya to be married most likely.
Obama Sr. returns to HI and Stanley Ann is estranged from parents still living in Kenya. Has the kid and returns to her old home state of Washington. Again, why so far away from parents? Look, there are issues here. This is a individualistic unique strong woman for sure. She’s obviously not getting along with parents or hubbie (didn’t really know him did she), so she’s back at old stomping grounds.
Whether or not Obama Jr. is there is uncertain. Some witnesses say “yes”, other that should have mentioned the baby don’t say squat. Perhaps lil barry was in Kenya w/step-Granny Sarah (whom he’s close to today).
In addition, Stanley Ann, now as Ann Obama, whereabouts after WA state are undetermined. But shows up in Hawaii with young Obama a year later after her Washington stint. She attended WA state til Spring 1962, then returns to Univ of Hi Spring 1963.
Clearly nothing became of her relationship with Obama Sr. as they were never together, as Obama Sr. starts school in Harvard, Boston MA fall 1962
Regardless, looking at what has been scrubbed, the criminal conspiracy, negligence thus far by our government — I’d wager he’s not only foreign born, but an undocumented illegal alien, not even an American citizen.
If true, press is destroyed, confidence in government destroyed.
All that most people in America are running on are reasonable expectations. Expectations they are being told “news” and the government is doing it’s job lawfully. To have that turned on it’s head brings incredulity, confusion, and then outrage. Hard to fathom the consequences, but certainly nothing would be the same.
I agree completely, which is one reason why I am not an impeachment advocate. The main consideration is that the danger to America is not a temporary usurper who is trying to dismantle our country. The real problem is an electorate (including far too many living and non-fictional voters) that would choose an obvious fraud, a lightweight with no experience, a racist anti-American, a communist, or especially the nightmare we are living - all of the above. The voters need to look at four years of failed extreme liberalism and learn from this massive mistake.
We need a candidate who will ask "are you better off than you were four years ago" and follow it with the worst case forecasts from before the Stimulus and TARP that said unemployment would reach 8% and stay that high until late in 2009 if Congress did nothing. That lesson won't sink in if we don't give the extreme left a full four years in our White House (whether or not the usurper is eligible for the job, a requirement that I do not consider a technicality any more than I consider "not a pedophile" a technicality when hiring a child care worker). Sadly, that lesson won't sink in if we nominate a RINO like Romney who campaigns on "I can implement socialism more efficiently than Obama".
My point: There is no Constitutional crisis.The Constitution is fine. Obama is President until impeached and removed. That’s how the Constitution works.
The Constitution survived Cheste4r B Arthur being born to a foreigner, and it will survive Obama (assuming we defeat him in 2012 and have enough conservatives in Congress).
“But he is the president, even if you call it illegal. The only remedy at this point is impeachment. There is no other authority but congress that can remove him.”
“A usurper is a usurper and can never be a “legal” President. ... Impeachment only applies to a legal President.”
That’s not what the Constitution says. since Obama was sworn in, he’s a legal President. whether he is a ‘usurper’ has to be adjudicated and the place to do it is ... impeachement and removal process. Follow the Constitution.
“An arrest can be made at any time, ...”
sure, but the only lawfulway to remove him from the office of President is impeachment and conviction. Only way.
You will not find support for this contention anywhere in the Constitution. Here is what you will find that disproves your assertion.
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.”
You will also find this in section three of the Twentieth amendment:
"”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 elect shall 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.”
Putting these two together means that a lack of qualifying equals a failure to qualify and a failure to qualify equals ineligibility to serve as President. The term "no person" does not allow wiggle room for anyone who happens to cheat the system into being sworn in. You cannot remove the term "usurper" by making like it does not exist. Under your scenario, there is no such thing as a usurper.
The Congress - the abettors in treason - would do nothing to void Obama’s laws. The GOP put him in the White House.
However, I imagine States or citizens could get a judge to look at voiding an Obama law. But I think the courts would more likely continue to claim that no American has any standing to force the government to operate under the constitution - the rule of law. It is handy for power mongers that Americans no longer have any standing against corruption in America’s Federal government.
Maybe that is being too harsh on our treasonous courts. I should have said no American who is not affiliated with a communist legal activist group has standing to address Federal corruption in the courts.
“You will not find support for this contention anywhere in the Constitution.”
Read your constitution! Article I section 3 “ The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h231.html
“You cannot remove the term “usurper” by making like it does not exist. Under your scenario, there is no such thing as a usurper.”
The word ‘usurper’ is not found in the Constitution. Your claims that he is that would have to be adjudicated ... where would that happen? IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL.That’s the only way to remove a sitting President. There is no other way, and its lunacy to suggest there is some other way. It wont fly.
PS. You are going to go through all this to make BIDEN President?!!?!
They are just NOT able to discredit Trump or able to shut him down. They have a serious conniption now they finally met General "Patton"-Trump who is sweeping the floor with them. I'm sure the more they try to ridicule him the more armor he gets in his arsenal, LOL!!
Their laughs are so cunning and unnatural that you easily sees right through them and their agenda!!!
Where is pervert Matthews "tingle up my legs" just unbelievable how ignorant these fourth estate "reporters"(?) really are, hmmm???
Bring forward the pop-corn and watch them soon getting eggs on their faces, when Trump introduces himself as a "Watergate"-like investigator, I.m just going to the "bank" LOL!!!
That’s WHY some legal experts calls this convoluted case a Constitutional crisis of proportion our nation has NEVER been faced with, and the legal difficulties to be sorted out never seen in 230+ years, hmmm!!!
I posted a link on another thread from Book’s Blaze site just after the “interview”(?) was made and Meredith looked like Donald had dumped a barrel of Gatorade right on her and she needed oxygen by gasping for air right there, LOL!!!
I do not disagree with this. I disagree with your contention that once sworn in, someone is legally a President although they are not eligible to hold the office. I asked you to find support of this position of yours. You still haven't. I have supported my contention from language found in the Constitution. You've yet to provide yours.
“I disagree with your contention that once sworn in, someone is legally a President”
A) that is what swearing in does, it makes someone President
B) any dispute about whether he can be President can ONLY be resolved through impeachment process. What proof do you have that he is not eligible? It would have to be presented before an impeachment trial, there is no other forum to decide it.
According to some birthers, Chester B Arthur was never eligible to be President. (I disagree.) Was he the President? Are the laws he signed valid? (YUP).
Like I said, find your contention in the Constitution. Why the delay? Can't find it?
The eligibility requirements do not say as you contend:
"” 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, unless they happen to fool the people into swearing them in, or accidentally get sworn in by a mistaken belief that they are eligible.”
Once again, PROVE your contention. I have proven mine. Mine is in the Constitution. So far, yours might as well be in the toilet.
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.
