Posted on 03/25/2010 12:45:04 PM PDT by conservativesister
I've searched FR, googled, and wicki-ed, the only thing I can find about removing a president is :
The House of Representatives has the power to bring articles of impeachment against a president. If articles are brought, then the president is considered impeached (but not guilty). A simple majority of the vote is sufficient to bring articles of impeachment.
Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution indicates reasons removal from office. "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Obviously, The House isn't going to listen to the people, my question is what rights do the people have for recall (like Gov. Davis) or removal of the President?
How does that make him a "Natural Born Citizen?" Unless of course, you believe that a "Native Born Citizen," with a foreign father, is eligible to run for and serve as POTUS.
The Great Obama hiself never claimed to be a "Natural Born Citizen" until lately, always referring to his Anointed Self as a "Native Born Citizen," on his website "fightthesmears.com"
I am resigned to his illegitimate presence until 2012, especially given the quality of the opposition. I certainly don't agree with it!
BTW, The Great Obama's Million-Dollar Legal Team has played these well meaning Birth Certificate people like trout. Now, anyone who calls the fellow's bona fides into question is immediately given a coat of Stupid Paint by being called a "Birther."
Bait and Switch, Sleight of Hand. Misdirection. Because had this miserable socialist son of a commie foreigner been born at home plate in Yankee Stadium during the 7th game of the World Series, he still could not be a "Natural Born Citizen." Simple. That requires that both parents be citizens. Thus it always was, and will be again, unfortunately after we are long done with Ms. Soetoro's Boy AKA Ms. Obama's Boy.
How does that make him a "Natural Born Citizen?" Unless of course, you believe that a "Native Born Citizen," with a foreign father, is eligible to run for and serve as POTUS.
As I said, there are two sides arguing this legal issue, as to whether the parents' citizenship can have any effect on the status of a person being "natural born"...
And you're not going to have that one settled without a Supreme Court decision (as to which side arguing this issue is right...) -- if they even decide to hear it in the first place (which they may not). But, there is not even a case being brought forward, currently, on this particular issue.
So, at this point in time, this particular issue is dead in the water.
Bait and Switch, Sleight of Hand. Misdirection.
Well, I don't see that with this issue -- with either (1) the birth certificate and (2) the natural born status of a person in regards to their parents' citizenship.
With one (1) the birth certificate issue seems fairly settled to me. It's not going to end up in court, because being a candidate has never legally required a birth certificate. So, no court is going to be asking for it, since no one has ever been legally required to produce one.
There's no bait, switch, sleight of hand or misdirection here. That State of Hawaii statement is pretty direct and straighforward to me.
And with two (2) I plenty of legal disputing on this issue of a person being "natural born" and how it's affected by their parents' citizenship. And since that's very obvious (all the legal disputing on it) -- that, just by itself, makes it clear that it's not going to be settled without a Supreme Court decision.
Again, I see no bait and switch, no sleight of hand and/or misdirection. It's an ordinary "legal dispute" -- which requires courts to settle it. There's nothing special about that kind of thing. It happens every day in this country, with all sorts of legal disputes that courts settle every day.
David, thanks for your, as usual, interesting perspective. So does this mean that you think exposure and removal from office is now a reasonable possibility? Or merely a subject for continued speculation?
Seems that this should happen before more harm is done.
Until lately, I’ve felt that flipping Congress in November would be enough to tie the President’s hands and stop his appalling agenda. I don’t want violence, upheaval, a nation distracted from very real international security concerns.
But the damage now being done is just too much to ignore. Something must be done to stop it.
Would these suits filed by the states’ attorneys general be an avenue into the scenario you suggest?
ping...
Sorry, but a birth certificate is the standard document for proving birth and citizenship.
However, the problem here -- is -- it's not a legal requirement to show a birth certificate to run as a candidate or be elected.
It's only required that a candidate swear and signed (with a notary) that they are (1) at least 35 years old (2) they have been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and that they are (3) a natural born U.S. citizen.
That's the requirement that all candidates have had, that all candidates have met and that Obama also followed.
There's been nothing different about how Obama qualified versus all the other candidates in the past.
HOWEVER, if a large enough group of citizens wish to make a "different legal requirement" -- then a law to that effect will have to be passed.
That's what I've been advocating since just after the election, that all candidates be required to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state (which has that law).
There's the solution that is required for what people would like to have done with their candidates.
All you have to do is look at the state department requirements for obtaining a passport.
And what that means, is that when someone wants to get a passport, then that's what they'll have to do...
And speaking of ... what do you suppose Obama used prior to June 2007 to get a passport??
Well, it's clear what he used. He used a birth certificate because that was what was required of him and everyone else.
And likewise, he signed a statement with a notary present to become a candidate and run for President of the United States, because that was what required of him and everyone else.
Nope. Next is President Pro Temp of the Senate, currently Robert Byrd. Then Hillary.
Clinton was impeached. He wasn’t removed from office.
Step 2 never kicked in as the congress refused to vote for it.
The Dem majority would never let this fly.
We are in a position of trusting all the crooks to roll over on one of them. Don’t think it can happen.
Should, maybe but as far as could, no chance.
I see. Hillary has her work cut out for her.
Obama was born in a hospital located in modern day Kenya. Whatever other arguments might be made, he did not become a citizen by right of birth.
So it isn't possible for him to be eligible to hold the office of President.
The office is thus vacant at this time.
The office is thus vacant at this time.
Check out #59.
[Thanks, Seizethecarp.]
There is no law that states that a candidate must produce citizenship documents. In California it is at the discretion of the Secy. of State. In the two cases previous, one candidate was not the required age, and the other was foreign born (it was obvious and not contested or subverted by forgeries). That was simply about the ability to be on the ballot.
While Barry Soetoro has not provided “patience of nobility” the equivelent of citizenship in this case (certificate of live birth is not the same thing as a long form BC), there is noting to prevent him from being president if the Electoral College, the Party Chairman, and the current VP (which at the time was R. Cheney) didn’t demand it before the oath of office.
While I would like to see that POS frogmarched out the front gate in shackles, and the wookie, her mother, and their children have to leave out of the servants door. I simply don’t see how we’re going to get there without some state placing a law that says “all candidates must produce “patience of eligibility””.
BTTT
Yes wacky ST does. It's LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
We had a discussion with some of the usual suspects this morning about their lack of undertanding of the de-facto officer doctrine...which I posted a link to a case concerning a judge and how he was not a defacto officer due to the error not being procedural but jurisdictional and constitutional (as it would be with Obie) It would be great if the first case to his the Supremes over health care challenged Sotomeyer’s appointment..two birds with one stone.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=2000app%5Cct112415&invol=1
We conclude that the issue presented here, as in Glidden v. Zdanok, supra, concerns both a nonfrivolous constitutional question and a strong policy regarding the proper administration of judicial business. Although the appointment of the county court judge here, not in accordance with statutory, constitutional, or chief justice directive provisions, may be regarded by some as a technical defect, at bottom, it concerns the fundamental interest of litigants in ensuring that “qualified county court judges” will be called upon to serve as acting district court judges “when necessary and when funds are available.” See Chief Justice Directive 95-01. This consideration leads us to adhere to our prior decision and conclude that the proper appointment of a county court judge to act as a district court judge presents a jurisdictional question. Therefore, the de facto judge doctrine does not apply, and the judgment cannot stand.
bump
After-all, how can a USURPER sign ANYTHING into law as POTUS?
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born). Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.
Yes wacky ST does. It's LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Just because you don't like the point doesn't mean one isn't being made, doncha know... :-)
See Post #92 ...
Well, two things here... but first before those two things... one thing is clear, no matter what. Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now, the two things regarding this issue of "natural born citizen" -- which is a slightly different issue (according to some posters) than if someone is born in the United States.
(1) The State of Hawaii has lawyers and they advise on legal issues as they have an entire agency of lawyers. The only reason why the State of Hawaii issued this statement is because it was an issue that the State of Hawaii has been "hounded about" by many people across the country.
So, they are issuing a statement to the general public of this nation, addressing the conserns of the citizens across this country -- about (a) where Obama was born, and (b) if he is a natural born citizen. Therefore knowing about this issue, knowing its legal ramifications, knowing their responsibility as the only official holders of this record -- they are going to have their legal agency vet any such statement about this kind of issue to the general public of the United States.
I don't have any concerns about them having vetted it and letting it go out just as it is stated in that announcement, because they know it's true according to their records and true according to the law (and their attorneys that verified that very thing).
(2) The other thing is that you've got an issue, dealing with the "natural born status" of a person -- which is in dispute by various legal parties. Some say all that is required is someone is born in the United States. Others say that the parents citizenship is essential to determining that.
There's no question that this is the dispute on the "natural born status" of a person -- since it's being argued that very way.
Thus, the only way anyone is ever going to settle that legal dispute, about anyone's "natural born status" (whether it has to do with the parents' citizenship or not -- is for the Supreme Court to make that determination.
Until you get a case to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether a person's citizenship is affected by the citizenship of their parents -- you're not going to have this settled.
It's obvious that the State of Hawaii is on one side of that legal issue -- and it's just as obvious that you are on the other side of that legal issue. This dispute will not be settled in any thread on Free Republic. It will only be settled by the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Obama is just as qualified as anyone else is, per the Constitution, as long as they meet those three requirements.
And then there's Post #46 ... that you can see... :-)
I know, I know, the Birth Certificate thing. To wit we have no concrete evidence, nor do we have statutory requirements for him to produce said BC. California has a ballot law but it’s obviously not strong enough.Well..., that's the most intelligent things I've seen written about the "Birth Certificate thing" -- after months and months of hand-wringing and screaming (by some) here on Free Republic....
Congratulations for managing to say something sensible about that issue... :-)
You were saying ...
If it can be proved he is NOT an American citizen - I would think he COULD be removed from office - AND HUSTLED OFF TO PRISON!Well, if one could prove that very thing... that he was not born here in the United States -- yes, you would have something concrete.
BUT considering that the very state agency that produces proof (by way of printing out a certified copy of a Birth Certificate) says that Obama was born here, that's not going to happen.
The State of Hawaii, the ones who print out the ceritified copy of a birth certificate, if one is required by a court of law for Obama -- has already said that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.
I don't think anyone is going anywere with the "birth certificate" issue... :-)
To see this yourself, first, you go to the main State of Hawaii, Department of Health webpage (as shown below in the first link, then you go to the Archived Press Releases (as shown in the second link) and lastly, you go to the actual press release from the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, in PDF format. You'll notice that all the links are the official website each one tracks to the next one, and to the actual press release itself.
State of Hawaii, Department of Health webpage
State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Archived News Releases
State of Hawaii, Department of Health Press Release, July 27, 2009
[viewable as a PDF file of the official State of Hawaii Press Release]
It is the following information, presented here text (not formatted exactly the same way, but all the same words), on that PDF file, with the official State of Hawaii seal on it...
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 -- 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
###
As far as addressing the issue from an official State of Hawaii pronouncement, since they are the holders of the original information, and have certified as a statement from the State of Hawaii (again the original maintainers and certifiers of that information) regarding the birth of Barack Obama -- this seems to wrap it up.
It doesn't get any more original or any more certified than this, as far as state records are concerned.
You were saying ...
Do you have a point?? You’re not really making one. No court has seen a certified copy of any vital record.And no court will ever see one on the basis of being a candidate for President of the United States, because no candidate is legally required to show a birth certificate.
You can't "bring a case" for a law that doesn't exist.... doncha know...
You were saying ...
How does that make him a "Natural Born Citizen?" Unless of course, you believe that a "Native Born Citizen," with a foreign father, is eligible to run for and serve as POTUS.As I said, there are two sides arguing this legal issue, as to whether the parents' citizenship can have any effect on the status of a person being "natural born"...
And you're not going to have that one settled without a Supreme Court decision (as to which side arguing this issue is right...) -- if they even decide to hear it in the first place (which they may not). But, there is not even a case being brought forward, currently, on this particular issue.
So, at this point in time, this particular issue is dead in the water.
Bait and Switch, Sleight of Hand. Misdirection.Well, I don't see that with this issue -- with either (1) the birth certificate and (2) the natural born status of a person in regards to their parents' citizenship.
With one (1) the birth certificate issue seems fairly settled to me. It's not going to end up in court, because being a candidate has never legally required a birth certificate. So, no court is going to be asking for it, since no one has ever been legally required to produce one.
There's no bait, switch, sleight of hand or misdirection here. That State of Hawaii statement is pretty direct and straighforward to me.
And with two (2) I plenty of legal disputing on this issue of a person being "natural born" and how it's affected by their parents' citizenship. And since that's very obvious (all the legal disputing on it) -- that, just by itself, makes it clear that it's not going to be settled without a Supreme Court decision.
Again, I see no bait and switch, no sleight of hand and/or misdirection. It's an ordinary "legal dispute" -- which requires courts to settle it. There's nothing special about that kind of thing. It happens every day in this country, with all sorts of legal disputes that courts settle every day.
And Post #105 ...
You were saying ...
Sorry, but a birth certificate is the standard document for proving birth and citizenship.However, the problem here -- is -- it's not a legal requirement to show a birth certificate to run as a candidate or be elected.
It's only required that a candidate swear and signed (with a notary) that they are (1) at least 35 years old (2) they have been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and that they are (3) a natural born U.S. citizen.
That's the requirement that all candidates have had, that all candidates have met and that Obama also followed.
There's been nothing different about how Obama qualified versus all the other candidates in the past.
HOWEVER, if a large enough group of citizens wish to make a "different legal requirement" -- then a law to that effect will have to be passed.
That's what I've been advocating since just after the election, that all candidates be required to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state (which has that law).
There's the solution that is required for what people would like to have done with their candidates.
All you have to do is look at the state department requirements for obtaining a passport.And what that means, is that when someone wants to get a passport, then that's what they'll have to do...
And speaking of ... what do you suppose Obama used prior to June 2007 to get a passport??Well, it's clear what he used. He used a birth certificate because that was what was required of him and everyone else.
And likewise, he signed a statement with a notary present to become a candidate and run for President of the United States, because that was what required of him and everyone else.
I know it gets to be difficult for those of the Obama Derangement Syndrome, at times... but try hard enough and you may get it ... LOL ...
There is no question that obama is not the legal President of the United States , the only question is how long will it be before Americans wake up and restore the office of the President to a LEGAL President.
Well, my only question would be ...
How many years after Obama has built his Presidential Library will y'all still be discussing the "fact" that Obama is not (was not) the President of the United States?
:-)
Sorry, but taking over private companies, such as GM and Chrysler are illegal and are impeachable offenses. Lying to the voters is also an impeachable offense.
Being deemed born in the USA is not good enough for Article II of the constitution, which is exactly why Obama has sealed his long form birth certificate and its supporting records.
A great fraud has been perpetrated on America, and a great disconnect from the constitution is now taking place.
People who take any other position have an agenda. You have one. What is it? You either support the constitution and its precedence over all other law, and its plain meaning, or not.
If you do not support the Constitution , what are YOU doing here? Spinning and demoralizing people who do support the constitution?If your kind win this issue and the constitution continues to be trashed, you and all your kind will be looking out of your houses over gun barrels, hoping that the government will not come for you. Of course you do not see that, which is your kinds problem. Its just a little game, but it will have consequences far more grave than you and your like can possibly imagine.Look to Europe and that cycle of history from 1925 to about 1935. We are in a very similar period, and your like were very much evident on Europe, As a matter if fact their writings sound just like you and yours.And they caused untold suffering.
A nation of laws cannot survive on political correctness. Millions die.Genocide happens. That is exactly what you represent as a microspec in that kind of history.
Here on FR we seek to restore the constitution, not use state vital statistic laws to knuckle under to the the forces of discivilisation who seek to traduce the constitution.
Yiu are on the losing side of history. Supposing we have to go after the Obama Junta, and hound them into their bunkers and caves just as free people did to their tyrants in France, Spain, Germany and Italy.And if your kind want some of that, we will have plenty for you.
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.