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.
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.
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.'
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
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?
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.
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.
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!
originally posted by: Shamrock6
No, the joke is you considering Roberts' direct quotation of the oath required by the Constitution to somehow be unlawful.
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
originally posted by: saintdopeium
I believe the reason behind the 4 inaugurations is that we have 2 Obamas. great OP!
originally posted by: derfreebie
he not only can't be tried for treason since he isn't a citizen,
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!