It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Take a wild ride with me down a rabbit hole - Barack Obama was never President

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix
No act is Unconstitutional until the Supreme Court deems it is.


Again, that is incorrect. The SCOTUS may merely FIND that an act is Unconstitutional and the act was Unconstitutional BEFORE that FINDING.


In a sense, maybe.

But it is not actionable and so for all intents and purposes the act was not Unconstitutional when it occurred.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sure, but what you're doing is comparing a clear-cut case of breaking the law (murder) with your opinion of something that you THINK goes against the Constitution.

See, that's why here in America, there is a thing called "innocent until proven guilty," which specifies that we have an avenue that we must take (the justice system) in order to be found guilty of an act and for it to be punishable.

That, once again, is my point--you are holding on to your opinion tightly, and that's fine, but I would hope that someone who claims to keep an open mind on this topic would realize that, unless a court of law determines that his oaths were unconstitutional, your OP and your opinion on the topic really don't make a bit of difference.

There are plenty of rapes that occur that go unprosecuted or unproven--yes, they're still rapes, but no, these people aren't guilty in the eyes of the law. That's my point. Take it or leave it, but responding again to reiterate your point will not change anything.

My other point is that, knowing the relevant passages of the Constitution as I do, my initial point is still valid--anything tacked on to the unofficial oath means nothing legally. Especially in my opinion, because I think that this whole god topic is nonsensical anyhow.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

In light of what Shamrock points out, however....then it becomes a religious test which disqualified him.



Very true but I think it then becomes a point of integrity rather than religion.

He has the choice of weather or not to have the question asked so if he then makes that request but says no then it would paint him as untrustworthy to the American people and could also be seen as making fun of the entire oath (which i know the line so help me god is not part of)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
In a sense, maybe.

But it is not actionable and so for all intents and purposes the act was not Unconstitutional when it occurred.


Yup. I don't think that the OP is going to accept this reality, though.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A point which has yet to get a rebuttal, I'll add. Weird.

As an exercise in thought - if Obama intended to say no, I doubt he would've asked for it to be included. And if he had wanted it included so that he could say no, it wouldn't have voided the oath, which had already been taken to completion. I'm sure a lot of people would've seen it as a dick move, but it wouldn't nullify the oath.

An attempt was made to have the Chief Justice barred from saying anything to the effect of "so help me/you/us/everybody God" through a lawsuit. The suit was tossed out, on account of the President having the right to include the words under his or her 1st Amendment rights. The suit was specific in that it didn't seek to bar the President from saying it, only the Chief Justice. The author of the suit even went so far as to say the President had a right to say the words as a citizen, he only wanted to prevent the Chief Justice from doing so.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

One thing i totally agree with you on is that its nice to have a political discussion on ATS that is not about he and she who shall not be named.

Otherwise I think you have read way too much into this.


Great. Thanks for finding something nice to say.

I happen to think words are very important when it comes to Oaths.

Agree to disagree.


So did the Framers. That's why they laid out specifically what the oath of office is for us.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
But it is not actionable and so for all intents and purposes the act was not Unconstitutional when it occurred.



It is actionable.

Has anyone taken action on it? I don't know. You don't know.


Let's take a look at the totality of the SCOTUS's action with regard to the phrase, "So help me God."

I think I have demonstrated that the VAST majority of SCOTUS justices in modern history have taken the position that it should be delivered as a statement for repeating (or not), at the conclusion of the Oath, and solely at the discretion of the Oath-taker.

Except John Roberts.

Just him.


edit on 19-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.


Even Joe Biden's ended with the statement, for repeating, at the end of the Oath -- although the VP Oath is otherwise entirely different from the POTUS.

Neither Oath includes the phrase in the Constitution. Whether or not to include it in the Oath is entirely up to the Oath-taker.

Roberts said he tacked in on AFTER the Oath. As a request for affirmation.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not right, but was cool to read. Lots of effort. s&F



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.


Even Joe Biden's ended with the statement, for repeating, at the end of the Oath -- although the VP Oath is otherwise entirely different from the POTUS.

Neither Oath includes the phrase in the Constitution. Whether or not to include it in the Oath is entirely up to the Oath-taker.

Roberts said he tacked in on AFTER the Oath. As a request for affirmation.


Where did Roberts say that he did it as a request for affirmation?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not right, but was cool to read. Lots of effort. s&F



Thanks, Reldra!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.


Even Joe Biden's ended with the statement, for repeating, at the end of the Oath -- although the VP Oath is otherwise entirely different from the POTUS.

Neither Oath includes the phrase in the Constitution. Whether or not to include it in the Oath is entirely up to the Oath-taker.

Roberts said he tacked in on AFTER the Oath. As a request for affirmation.


Where did Roberts say that he did it as a request for affirmation?


That is self-evident.

To what do you suggest he might have been referring, if not the Oath he just administered?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




It is actionable.


No, it's not.

When the Supreme Court declares an act Unconstitutional, you can't be retroactively punished for committing that act in the past. That would actually be pretty scary if that were true.

Just think about it. You do something that you, and everyone else, assumes it is Constitutional...then 2 years later the SCOTUS deems it Unconstitutional...should you be in trouble?


So the bottom line is this. Even if the SCOTUS would deem this phrasing Unconstitutional, it would only apply from that point FORWARD.

This is just how the system works.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.


Even Joe Biden's ended with the statement, for repeating, at the end of the Oath -- although the VP Oath is otherwise entirely different from the POTUS.

Neither Oath includes the phrase in the Constitution. Whether or not to include it in the Oath is entirely up to the Oath-taker.

Roberts said he tacked in on AFTER the Oath. As a request for affirmation.


Where did Roberts say that he did it as a request for affirmation?


That is self-evident.

To what do you suggest he might have been referring, if not the Oath he just administered?



Then that's nothing more than your inference. He stated what his intent was when the words were uttered. In a document that you provided for us. The words were used at the request of Obama, and not used as a religious test to hold office.

It's telling that you choose to respond to this and ignore the other elephant in the room sized point I made.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is a very interesting conspiracy theory you've got here. I expect you'll garner a great deal of derision for it...I hope however, since we do in fact exist in a Universe of infinite possibilities, that the skeptics will for once simply put aside their criticism and just ask, What if? It really doesn't require us to believe it in order to imagine it, after all.

So. This is really strange to read, because when me and the gang get together and discuss conspiracy, we spend a lot of time talking about the current POTUS. Specifically, how he's been so very quiet lately, but other things regarding him as well. Trying to understand how he fits in with all of this..."this" being the fact that someone is clearly up to shenanigans; and most likely quite a few different someones.

So, assuming this is actually intentional, and for the purpose of his never actually being legally sworn in, the biggest question would be why? You've got to have at least some hint of a theory...you've obviously spent time researching this, a very well written OP by the way. What could be a reason why he would do such a thing?

Trump is a fall guy, so he's on the way out, right on schedule...I've predicted this for months, but it should be obvious to everyone by now.That leaves Hillary, the next POTUS. I know blah blah f*ck Hillary, everybody hates her. Ok, but she's it, folks.

Ok, so what if something happens to her? Specifically before the election? People have been murmuring about the current POTUS somehow getting an extension on his term (That's another one that requires a leap of imagination, in this hypothetical, it is completely possible), by whatever loophole he can find. Ok, so...if he was never sworn in to begin with, could it provide him some way around the law? Or, could it be a technicality that could somehow later be used to absolve him of responsibility for something?

The only other presidents who had the oddly worded oaths were Reagan and Kennedy, right? Any connections possible among the three? The inflection of query at the end could simply be due to a person's accent or speech pattern...I know lots of people who end sentences with that inflection. Perhaps the wording is significant regarding the other two as well?

There might be other related things that haven't been discovered...or it may be nothing at all. Intriguing, at any rate...and certainly no less plausible than anything else out there; jump out of one rabbit hole and right the hell into another one. Why not...we're living an uninterrupted Twilight Zone marathon already. Might as well make it interesting.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: MotherMayEye




It is actionable.


No, it's not.

When the Supreme Court declares an act Unconstitutional, you can't be retroactively punished for committing that act in the past.



As long as Obama is serving as President it is actionable -- perhaps longer. It has nothing to do with 'retroactive.'

It may even be possible that a person denied a benefit under a Federal Law signed by Obama could have standing to argue the 'disqualifying' restriction is Unconstitutional and lacking the force and effect of law.

For example, a person applying for Federal Student Loan Forgiveness is denied the full benefit because they don't meet the restrictions, signed into Law by Obama....a member of the armed services, teacher, etc...

The person denied the full benefit may actually have standing in a federal court to assert their rights to the benefit without unlawful restrictions.

Who knows what this theory might imply with regard to 'actionable.'

I just thought some people might be interested in exploring the possibility.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: MotherMayEye




And, what if this wild conspiracy theory is true?

Well, it is a bit late to do anything about it.

To what end was this possible conspiracy perpetrated?

Maybe to the end that this makes the next President the last 44th and not this President


As well as if he were not qualified in the first place no other was involved in the action of swearing him in for instance.
edit on 19-10-2016 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So if it was un-Constitutional and Obama was never President, could he technically run for and accept the office two more times?

It is curious how the oaths are all identical except for Obama's.


Even Joe Biden's ended with the statement, for repeating, at the end of the Oath -- although the VP Oath is otherwise entirely different from the POTUS.

Neither Oath includes the phrase in the Constitution. Whether or not to include it in the Oath is entirely up to the Oath-taker.

Roberts said he tacked in on AFTER the Oath. As a request for affirmation.


Where did Roberts say that he did it as a request for affirmation?


That is self-evident.

To what do you suggest he might have been referring, if not the Oath he just administered?



Then that's nothing more than your inference.



Oh, ok. Well, I am going to infer that he was referring to the Oath he just concluded. You have not offered another conclusion. I think my take is most reasonable and don't feel you have 'proven' otherwise.

Moving on.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So what's the point of it all? To what end/purpose?




top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join