Skip to comments.Subpoena the President? (Vanity)
Posted on 10/31/2013 8:31:25 AM PDT by privatedrive
Please help me understand. Why don't we subpoena the President? The daily lies about Obamacare have reached the point where Americans need some answers from the President - officially and under oath. There's too much at stake here not to do this.
I think that he could claim Executive Privilege, but doesn't he need some justification (such as national security) to do so? And also I believe that ignoring a subpoena is grounds for impeachment. Any constitutional scholars out there? Why are we not issuing a subpoena to Barack Obama?
If there was ever a time where we needed someone with the guts to do this, it's now.
No one from either party with balls enough, nor love of country. As simple as that.
I’m not sure the checks and balances in the constitution allow it, at least if the plaintiff is the congress or judiciary.
The constitution did not include provisions for such deliberately calculated malfeasance.
All other legal appearances are voluntary.
What makes you think he would not just lie under oath?
“Please help me understand. Why don’t we subpoena the President?”
Congress cannot subpoena a sitting President due to the Separation of Powers contained in the Constitution.
Right...because he’ll tell the truth THIS time. He would lie under oath in a heartbeat, especially after putting his hand on the Bible.
No thanks...there’s no reason to believe a word he says, and I personally WILL NOT listen to him. Many in Congress probably feel the same way.
Answer: Because he isn’t a white Republican.
Separation of powers basically gives the President immunity from the laws that apply to us serfs.
However, I think that the House should start saying that they think it’s time he came for a committee hearing and repeat it often.... make it look as though Obama is hiding.
The low information voter has no idea about how the Constitution works.
Obama is ripe for a subpoena due to the failure of the ACA.
Obama is a usurper because he naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. When an individual has a direct, injurious impact upon them because of a law sign by a usurper, then they can sue the Federal Government to recover damages and enjoin the Federal government from committing further direct harm upon the individual.
For example, let’s say a person has been notified by the insurance company their health insurance enforced before the ACA has been cancelled because of the ACA. This individual can sue in Federal Court to claim Obama is a usurper, Obama must prove he is eligible to be President because the individual objects to the laws and regulations imposed upon them by a usurper, subpoena Obama’s birth records, Occidental school records and immigration records to prove he is a usurper, and demand they receive a waiver from the ACA until Obama leaves office and a qualified President takes office.
The individual can sue HHS Secretary Sebelius and Obama for violating the Appointment’s Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The individual asserts Obama is a usurper and Appointments by a usurper are invalidated when there is a direct and immediate impact on the plaintiff.
The U.S. Constitution was written to protect the People from the Government. The Will of the People, by a majority vote of the Electors, can vote a usurper as POTUS. But, the Bill of Rights protects individuals from disparate impact of a usurper and his appointments. The DeFacto Officer Doctrine indemnifies the U.S. Government and insulates the Federal government from lawsuits AFTER the usurper and exposed and has exited the office.
They would be targeting the wrong person, they should be targeting the shadow government...the czars.
DERELICTION OF DUTY file for the upcoming Impeachment of the White House resident commonly known as B. Hussein Obama, also known as Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
The answer can be described as O.D.D.; Obfuscation, Delay and Denial. Even if we had GOP big and bad enough to confront Obama with all these charges, Holder and the Media would help Obama to drag the proceedings out for a long, long time. The goal being to prevent any real action until his second term is finally over.
Couldn’t some Congressional committee simply “invite” or “request” the wretch to appear? Then politely ask if he would be willing to take an oath?
Obummer wouldn’t look good if he declined the invitation, and we all know how important appearances are to him.
“The only legal method to forcibly deal with a sitting President is Impeachment and Conviction.
All other legal appearances are voluntary.”
thanks - Is this an opinion or can anyone cite actual law to validate this?
“Congress cannot subpoena a sitting President due to the Separation of Powers contained in the Constitution.”
Thanks - but I cannot find this anywhere in the Constitution. Can anyone help please?
One of the judges in the countless eligibility cases ordered him to show up in court. hussein and his lawyers gave a one fingered reply. Case closed.
Grand Jury indictment. It worked to get bubba’s testimony.
found this one the net - cannot take credit for it or verify its accuracy:
“This would cause a constitutional crisis that would require the supreme court to resolve, they may direct that he was never president, they may direct the Legislature to take up articles of impeachment. since this has never happened it could be interesting.”
The Constitution is the legal document that establishes this procedure, and it is for the purpose of protecting a legally installed President from disablement by a corrupt prosecutor while still holding a President accountable for his actions during his term, if necessary.
Okay - makes sense. So impeachment is the only procedure to address Presidential wrongdoing.
But - could the President be subpoenaed to testify, or provide information, in a hearing such as this?
To use an extreme hypothetical: If the president were to eye-witness a murder, could he be subpoenaed to testify as a witness?
A sitting President cannot be forced to appear or testify. This is different from being subpoenaed. A sitting President can give the single digit salute to the legal entity doing so, and there are no consequences or actions that can be taken to force appearance. Publicity may be the only result.
However, a sitting President may voluntarily appear, for his own purposes.
“Separation of powers...”
Seems to me that ‘Separation of Powers’ is exactly the reason why Congress SHOULD be able to subpoena. Absent any explicit language in the Constitution, the Supreme Court would have to decide whether nor not he will appear.
Bottom line: What do we have to lose? We need to take some REAL action instead of useless letters and phony hearings.
Any young buck Congressman out there who wants to make a name for himself?
You would have to have a functioning DOJ for that to happen. We haven’t had that for at least 5 years.
It depends on the issue. Clinton was forced to testify in the Jones case. Kennedy voluntarily testified in a civil damages lawsuit. Nixon was subpoenaed for activities relating to the Watergate break-in.
Make it less dramatic - he witnesses an automobile accident. Yes, he can be subpoenaed.
Thanks again - I think you’re right.
(Although I still can’t find it in the constitution - I always thought that anyone who ignores a subpoena is in contempt of court)
Anyway - what would we have to lose? It surely would not look good for him to ignore a legitimate request by the American people that he provide us with some answers.
“Make it less dramatic - he witnesses an automobile accident”
(sorry did not mean to bring up Clinton/Foster/Brown)
So thanks for clearing that up: Yes, he can be subpoenaed.
Why would the DOJ be involved? That would fly in the face of Separation of Powers. As part of the Administration, that would be the fox guarding the henhouse.
“It depends on the issue. Clinton was forced to testify in the Jones case. Kennedy voluntarily testified in a civil damages lawsuit. Nixon was subpoenaed for activities relating to the Watergate break-in.”
And I would argue that deliberate, serial lying to the American, by a sitting President, in order to get a bill passed that controls one sixth of our economy, is far more significant than any of the above.
So let’s do it.
Long ago, I learned that the law is a double edged sword with a stiletto point on it's butt.
You have to wield it very carefully, accurately and with complete understanding, or you're gonna get cut up badly.
Consider the fate of Scooter Libby, who was protected by GW Bush's Executive Privilege, but Bush voluntarily waived that and instructed Libby to testify, repeatedly. Libby went to jail, was fined into poverty where no crime was committed by any Republican, and several by Democrats, but there was a slight discrepancy in two of his dozen required testimonies.
It would be unwise to remove Executive Privileged while a Communist or DemoRat remained alive on the planet. Note tagline.
Excellent discussion, valid vanity.