Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: libh8er
Can he be impeached over ineligibility ?

You can't impeach somebody who was never eligible to hold the office in the first place. It means he was never president because he wasn't eligible.

He would simply be removed by US Marshals.

10 posted on 03/26/2009 7:22:20 AM PDT by brewcrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: brewcrew

And if he were to be removed because he was never legally the president, all the legislation he signed would be invalid — including the stimulus and abhorrent executive orders.


13 posted on 03/26/2009 7:32:52 AM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: brewcrew
"He would simply be removed by US Marshals. "

wow woud that be fun to watch...

21 posted on 03/26/2009 7:45:39 AM PDT by Mr. K (physically unable to proofreed (<---oops))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: brewcrew
Why do you think the court has not yet touched this matter and why do you think the court will not touch the matter but declare it a political question?

Because the Supreme Court knows it does not have the physical power to order the president to do anything. How many divisions does SCOTUS have?

The Supreme Court entered orders over the forced removal of the Cherokees along the trail of tears but President Jackson simply ignored their orders and did as he pleased. I'm old enough to remember that there was some doubt whether President Eisenhower would enforce the Supreme Court's orders respecting the integration of the schools in Arkansas.

The Supreme Court is painfully aware that ultimately its power is only as strong as the disposition of the people, the elected officials, and the Armed Forces to follow the court.

If the Supreme Court were to send federal marshals to the White House they would never get past the Secret Service or the Marine standing guard outside the Oval Office. The Supreme Court will not open itself to issuing unenforceable orders. It is not going to go verging into grave questions of state which they cannot control and might even lead to civil war

Moreover, there is ample legal precedent for the Supreme Court to take this position and quite properly so. After all, the matter could have been handled by the political parties themselves, by the secretaries of state of the individual states which certified candidates or ballots, or when they certified the election results, or by the political party in convention, or by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Supreme Court is not the only venue for resolving disputes in America and it is not the venue for deciding "political" questions at all.

Make no mistake, I am as troubled by you are by Obama's inexplicable refusal to produce his birth certificate. Common sense tells me that there is only one explanation for this. However, I do not see much hope of any successful legal maneuver this administration and none whatsoever unless Republicans can take the Congress in 2010 in that body.

Our best hope is to set up a control process which bars the mountebank from reelection.Meanwhile, we should continue every legal challenge possible-I could be wrong-and beat the drum ceaselessly.


32 posted on 03/26/2009 8:06:52 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson