Posted on 07/01/2009 9:34:56 AM PDT by rxsid
Sure. But other than a Supreme Court ruling that he is not legitimately President, I can’t think of any way to legally find him to be an illegitimate President. Certainly, no Executive branch agency nor the military have any Constitutional power to do so.
Who knows. Time will tell I guess.
Perhaps...the military 'angle' isn't about legitimacy at all.
Perhaps...it's about having evidence that a crime of treason has been committed.
The Military Oath:
"The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...
The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States."
Maybe. They should release the information if they feel there is a violation of the Constitution.
The colonists (backed by militia) overthrew the British government due to what? Being unresponsive to 'the people' (among other charges). They didn't act after getting approval from the British courts or the British Parliament.
The difference was that the colonists were not represented in Parliament. That is not the case in the US, as we are a representative Republic. What you are hinting at is lawlessness and anarchy worthy of a banana republic.
Whether or not someone has comitted treason is not for the military to decide. The Constitution lays out how treason is to be handled.
So long as Congress and the President are elected in accordance with the Constitution and the courts are open, the military should have no role in deciding what are purely political and legal issues.
Some would argue...we are already there (see Chrysler bondholder issue for but one example).
They're going to do so regardless.
Yep. Best to go ahead and give you argument. Make noise. Be heard. Make them "explain" themselves. Likely as not if they are up to no good they will fumble their "reasons."
U.S. Constitution
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Hypothetically speaking, suppose (a Constitutionally legitimate) POTUS did commit Treason.
Who would have the authority to take that treasonous POTUS into custody? (note: this is about arrest (as noted in the quoted article)...not tried and convicted of which of course would presumably occur in some court with Congress determining the punishment).
Would civilian law enforcement have the authority to arrest that (Constitutionally legitimate) POTUS? We would assume not because a legitimate POTUS can not be arrested...right? So then, who, or what authority could make the arrest then? Certainly not Congress...nor SCOTUS. Right?
Who then?
Now, add to that the growing circumstantial evidence that Barry isn't a constitutionally legit POTUS...now what?
The question is, who (or what agency) has the authority to make the initial arrest for an alleged act of Treason?
Thanks, LucyT.
The only place I’m hearing about this is on FR. Sad, isn’t it?
No one. Sitting Presidents are immune to arrest and being charged for crimes. They have to be removed through impeachment before they become subject to arrest. The President could murder someone on national television and he would not be subject to arrest by law enforcement agencies.
Others, disagree...with (arguably) descriptive analysis:
"Thursday, July 2, 2009
In the case of constitutional issues the Constitution is sovereign, and/or "We the People" by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not a branch of the federal government which is ignoring it. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.
I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the "fundamental law" as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and they do not ignore the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. The President and Congress are not above the law. I did not swear an oath defend a man or any particular President or a piece land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al"
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-sovereign-immunity.html
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.