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: 7
49
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I don't think this is pedantic at all. This analysis is some of the best attention to detail I've ever seen.

So Joe Biden's been the real president this whole time? Doesn't surprise me in a nation gripped by secret law. No wonder things got so screwed up. That guy's a Bimbo.

Great work MotherMayEye




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Oh and just thinking out loud here, this would mean that if Joe Biden was the real President this whole time, everything the "president" signed into law is null.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jenkinswasher
Oh and just thinking out loud here, this would mean that if Joe Biden was the real President this whole time, everything the "president" signed into law is null.


Thanks!

I pondered this in an earlier comment:


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.'





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



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
This is a joke, right?

Even if he decides not to answer the question, or answers in the negative, he is not 'failing the test'. The failure would be on the Chief Justice for providing the test in the first place, in which case if there was any Constitutional standing to say the test was not administered in a proper way then another justice would be summoned.

There is no Constitutional lawyer, scholar, or even someone who simply understands the document that would ever even feel the need to have a discussion on the matter. They would simply say what I have and let it be, as it deserves no further refutation.
edit on 19-10-2016 by IsntLifeFunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny
This is a joke, right?

Even if he decides not to answer the question, or answers in the negative, he is not 'failing the test'. The failure would be on the Chief Justice for providing the test in the first place


No, it's not a joke.

Is it a joke that you don't appear to have read the OP where I placed blame on Roberts for intentionally administering an unlawful Oath?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny
This is a joke, right?

Even if he decides not to answer the question, or answers in the negative, he is not 'failing the test'. The failure would be on the Chief Justice for providing the test in the first place


No, it's not a joke.

Is it a joke that you don't appear to have read the OP where I placed blame on Roberts for intentionally administering an unlawful Oath?




No, the joke is you considering Roberts' direct quotation of the oath required by the Constitution to somehow be unlawful.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny
This is a joke, right?

Even if he decides not to answer the question, or answers in the negative, he is not 'failing the test'. The failure would be on the Chief Justice for providing the test in the first place, in which case if there was any Constitutional standing to say the test was not administered in a proper way then another justice would be summoned.

There is no Constitutional lawyer, scholar, or even someone who simply understands the document that would ever even feel the need to have a discussion on the matter. They would simply say what I have and let it be, as it deserves no further refutation.


And yet it has ALWAYS been a SCOTUS justice that administered this add-on to the Oath as a statement, not a question.

Except Roberts, and only him.

And you think they would all agree with you. Ballsy. Laughable, but ballsy.


(post by EmmanuelGoldstein removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Obama did hold the office - but I'm not sure he actually ever did anything (useful at least).


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



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny
This is a joke, right?

Even if he decides not to answer the question, or answers in the negative, he is not 'failing the test'. The failure would be on the Chief Justice for providing the test in the first place


No, it's not a joke.

Is it a joke that you don't appear to have read the OP where I placed blame on Roberts for intentionally administering an unlawful Oath?




No, the joke is you considering Roberts' direct quotation of the oath required by the Constitution to somehow be unlawful.


Direct quotation?

Nope. TWO attempts at the Oath were garbled. The second attempt, in 2009, was not videotaped and the photo of Obama raising his right hand was taken two and half minutes AFTER the Oath was reportedly taken.

There's enough here to question the Oaths Obama took. Like it or not, I have raised questions with merit for discussion. Nothing about this post warrants accusations that it is a joke.

But if that's all you have..it is telling to this debate.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Actually, I am more intrigued by what book Michelle is holding in his 2013 ceremony while he swears his oath because it is not prefaced by "place your hand on the bible". It had a heavy add-on type protective cover on it making rather thin for any version of the Bible. He wasn't asked to place his hand anywhere in his first 2009 swearing in. Surely had a bible been there he or chief justice Roberts would have mentioned it, no??
edit on 19-10-2016 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Interesting observation. I do not know what this book is:




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Could be poetry by Robert Sands but I doubt it.
Mb a tour guide to the White House!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Could be poetry by Robert Sands but I doubt it.
Mb a tour guide to the White House!




'Goodnight Moon' has a green cover.

Wait...But, it's puffy -- like an old timey photo album. Maybe it's filled with photos of his favorite well-manicured lawns?

ETA: Or nudies.


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


(post by IsntLifeFunny removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
No, the joke is you considering Roberts' direct quotation of the oath required by the Constitution to somehow be unlawful.


Remember we have seen how some people wanted to disregard the constitution in regard to President Obama's eligibility, so why would they wanting to ignore the constitution in this case be any different?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're talking a stretch there in regards to Hillary affirming the oath of office, however, if she does become president through whatever failure if the system, I would expect her oath to end in "all hail Satan."

Cheers - Dave


I should not be surprised if such an oath ended in "Hail, Hydra!' or one of its analogues in the waking world.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: saintdopeium
I believe the reason behind the 4 inaugurations is that we have 2 Obamas. great OP!


Just swell, saint... and God help us all as if one wasn't enough.
I suppose schizophrenia means never having to say "I'm not
quite ourselves today."

This is most intriguing-- but still, he was legally sworn in as
President, and to boot was legally qualified to ascend (hey
this is the first time I ever ADVANCED it) by public acclaim
instead of litigation. In disregard of all else, all the suits claiming
ANYTHING were thrown out before any minutes were generated.

He can't be tried for treason if he isn't a citizen, OR be impeached
from an office he never legally held... there isn't enough time to
litigate the waxy ball of yarn anyway due to the FIX is IN.
Besides the Don said he's an American citizen now, and my brain hurts.

edit on 20-10-2016 by derfreebie because: Sometimes silence is moldin'



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: derfreebie
he not only can't be tried for treason since he isn't a citizen,


So being born in the USA does not make one a citizen?

Funny how the courts disagree with you!



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: derfreebie
he not only can't be tried for treason since he isn't a citizen,


So being born in the USA does not make one a citizen?

Funny how the courts disagree with you!


Let's get a seance slapped together and ask Loretta Cuddy.
I think she's got a pretty open calendar now.

As far as wherever he's from, his real birth father was a British
subject at the time; and his mother was not yet 19. Read the law.

I don't care if he was born in a Lucite bubble in the Sea of
Tranquility; the facts remain that this is off topic--
and we have bigger fish to fry.




top topics



 
49
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join