Posted on 01/14/2010 10:08:15 AM PST by STARWISE
Yes, ultimately Orly is working for Obama’s removal. But she is asking the judge to examine the evidence she has provided that he was born in the Coastal Province of Kenya and therefore has no legitimate claim to give orders to the military. And they are putting themselves in legal jeopardy if they obey orders from an illegitimate authority. According to international law, going back for centuries, and according to the Nuremberg trials, to take one instance, it’s not enough for a soldier to say that he is obeying orders. They must be legitimate orders. You can’t just close your eyes to such questions and obey blindly.
But this judge is not expected to remove Obama personally. He is expected to consider the evidence and the particular case in question—can military personnel be expected to obey the commands of a commander whose legitimacy is in real doubt?
So, he should either be calling in expert witnesses to argue whether the evidence Orly provided appears to be legitimate, or is forged, or he should be asking Obama to provide the usual evidence that he is a natural born American citizen with a right to be President.
Nothing unusual about that. Nothing private or personal about that. Every American is expected to come up with a valid birth certificate if the situation and the law call for it.
Awesome!
Please let us know when you have the suit filed and post your progress.
Awesome!
Please let us know when you have the suit filed and post your progress.
Sooo basically what you're saying is that you cant get there from here. This is one gigantic load. If the Judiciary does not have the authority to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the presidency according to the Constitution, then just who does?
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b): "The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished."
Before the election, many states' election laws would have permitted a challenge to Obama's qualifications, if brought by another candidate on the ballot. This could have been done either by another Democratic candidiate during the primaries, or by McCain or a third party candidate during the general election. But no one brought such a suit, and the time to do so ran once the election was held. (It can still be done for 2012).
Once the election was held, Congress could have considered a challenge to Obama's qualifications when it certified the electoral votes, but no one objected.
At this point, the only way to remove Obama from office before 2012 is by impeachment.
You mean proof that Mr. Obama seems to have gone to rather ridiculous extremes to deny the various plaintiffs in these cases? Sorry, it seems your argument is getting a bit circular here.
You're probably right but what about his ability to run again in 2012? I'd say the question is legitimate and far from over. What was the last job that you got while refusing to answer these questions. The last job I got I had to have a Notary Public certify my proof of citizenship documents before submitting them to my contract company.
Not at all, If you want to prove Obama is ineligible, you need to present proof of ineligibility. It's not a complicated concept, nor is it a circular one.
Yes, it is. Once again, Mr. Obama has hired a phalanx of lawyers and spent over a million dollars to keep such evidence from the plaintiffs in these cases and no judge so far has seen fit to compel disclosure of said evidence. How is this not a circular argument?
Who is this “we” you refer to? Yourself and who else? Not me.
Signup date of the “we are afraid” personage.
As I posted above, the pre-election challenges can be brought in 2012. But a candidate who is on the ballot must bring such a challenge, and during the narrow time frame the law allows (in most states, that would be after Obama files his offficial statement of intention to run and before the ballots are printed).
As I posted above, the pre-election challenges can be brought in 2012. But a candidate who is on the ballot must bring such a challenge, and during the narrow time frame the law allows (in most states, that would be after Obama files his offficial statement of intention to run and before the ballots are printed).
You don't have to hope, you can read the Federal Rules of Evidence here. They're not a secret, and they're not that difficult to understand.
Would you prefer to live with a legal system where there are no rules? Where every case is decided by the passing whim of a judge? And nothing could be appealed, because all judgments are subjective, and therefore not based on rules, or laws?
Should we encourage trashing the Constitution because we feel this man has circumvented it?
I certainly don't want to live in such a place. And I'm not willing to give up defending the rule of law because we are now saddled with such a sorry excuse for a President.
You can still file complaints that can take the form of a mandamus action. Just don’t need to follow arcane pleading forms.
So you have to prove your case to the judge before you can go to trial? Before you can get access to the evidence that would provide proof?
Why do we bother with trials then? Or juries.
Not one of these lawyers, least of all Taitz, has done that.
No judge had yet looked at any evidence. AFAIK, all the cases have been thrown out on "standing" or "jurisdictional" grounds.
Why must it be a candidate on the ballot. Do not each and every one of us have standing to determine if our presidential candidates are eligible and have been lawfully elected? It would seem to me self evident that this is the case. Each one of us as sovereign citizens give up by choice some of our power to our elected officials. It is ridiculous on the face of it that we then have no right to question their legitimacy and qualifications.
“it would change nothing. We are so afraid of the rampant carnage (burning cities, murdering people of West-European descent)”
This is, unfortunately, a point worth considering. Would it be worth overlooking this outrageous Constitutional violation if it meant we were spared an uprising of the blacks that could destabilise this country for years beyond just the immediate “get whitey” raping and pillaging? Or should we stand on principle for the Constitution and take the consequences?
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.