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.

 

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

page: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I just knew you'd be all over this. Will be watching this space to see what you pick up on.

That is if we don't end up going the designated survivor route...
edit on 19-1-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I just knew you'd be all over this. Will be watching this space to see what you pick up on.

That is if we don't end up going the designated survivor route...


I was all over the inaugural designated survivor issue days ago, too. I knew there would be partisan sickos thinking about it. I didn't realize it would be Wolf Blitzer though.


edit on 19-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I am resurrecting this thread because I am anxious to see how Roberts administers the Oath tomorrow.

If it concludes with a question, "So help YOU God?" -- identically to Obama's Oath -- that will be very interesting.
If it concludes with a request for the recitation of the phrase,"So help ME God," then that's equally interesting.

(...to me, anyway)


One other scenario worth mentioning... Roberts could administer the entire Oath in the third person -- including, "So help you God," and preface the entire Oath with 'repeat after me."

That's not how Roberts administered Obama's Oaths but such a method would be Constitutional -- and some presidents once took the Oath this way.

Also, I noticed that the NYT is reminding us of the curious fumbling over words during Obama's Oaths: Link

Will there be fumbling over words tomorrow? And does that matter?




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You raise several interesting points. For the law givers, and interpreters, words mean very specific things, except when they don't.

A quick trip through the world of legal definitions finds words have meanings in the law, like in oaths, VASTLY, ENTIRELY different then in the real world. So folks without this awareness will just say, "so what, he took it and that's that." These folks have never been in court and have never read the legal dictionaries through the printings.

One interesting thing I noted is the rather bizarre agree to statement, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." What this says legally is, "protect a piece of paper" and nothing more. While many will say, "eh, they know the real point is..." I say, words have meaning. What is left out his huge, what is left in is a rather pointless admonition to look after a piece of paper no located in a library.

As for the esteemed, self proclaimed "constitutional scholar" he demonstrated 4x times he's an idiot. A REAL constitutional scholar would have noticed the error in that moment, and corrected Roberts, not simply nodded his had and then have to be told he needed to correct things later in PRIVATE! Ugh.

As for God. What are they referring to as "god?" the problem here is people ASSUME the word means the daddy of the one who died on the cross. Words mean very specific things, except when the don't. So it is possible that "God" is not a reference to Jesus' dad, but the brotherhood. The reason it isn't an absolute in the oath, is that this "choice" is not about the good lord, but about acknowledging the brotherhood in public, a choice.

Words matter, except when they don't. If what words mean is so implied and so absolute, one has to wonder why Blacks Law went to all the trouble to take the original 1st definition of "Person" and swap it with the 2nd definition after the first printing? We went from "Human Being" being the accepted 1st definition, to "corporation" being the accepted 1st. This means, when you see "person" in legal docs you are to refer to it as a corporation first and foremost, not a human being unless otherwise stated. Words matter.

I can't grasp how someone who believes that the law, which is nothing but words, is so absolute, except when it is so convenient to say, "eh, everyone knows what they mean, stop being such a stickler."

Now the why. Well, that's hard to say. Roberts seems a bit scummy to say the least, but we'll assume as CHIEF JUSTICE he knows what he is doing. We can also assume a guy who spent all of his constitutional scholar energy in the white house playing golf, shooting hoops, hanging JZ and the gang, fund raising and appearing on countless TV shows, had a purpose that was something other then governing. In fact, it could be argued he did nothing but perform as president, so...



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: crankyoldman


You raise several interesting points.


I'm going to turn that right back and thank you for providing the absolutely perfect segue for something MotherMayEye and I have discussed in PMs but have yet to include in any thread.

Namely that of the entity of a LEGAL PERSON and I know you understand what is implied here due to your awareness of it referring to a corporation rather than a human being.

There is also something similar with the United Stated of America, Inc. If you have yet to read MME's thread about the birth certificate which was used to demonstrate Obama's legitimacy to hold the office of president, I strongly advise you to so.

The information in that thread taken together with what she has presented within this one paints an extremely intriguing picture of what we have been living under for the last eight years. If we have not had not only an illegitimate president, but one who has taken an illegitimate oath, what does that mean for U.S.A., Inc.?

I think some high level shady shenanigans have been going on behind the scenes and this is all part and parcel of something that's not quite gelling for me, but I can tell that there's something there, know what I mean?

I also think that Scalia's death was tied in with all of that as well, but that's opening a whole other case of worms.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The oath is not required to make the president-elect the president. According to the constitution, the transfer of power from one president to the next happens at noon on the clock.

Obama became president at precisely noon of January 20, 2009.

law2.umkc.edu...



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: justicesforall

That is true, but they cannot legally perform any actions as the executive until they take the oath.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

True. But how would a disabled person, someone who cannot talk, take the oath? If such a person is elected as president, he cannot executive? I doubt that.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

to barrow a phrase,



i mean he's gone tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
A disabled person who cannot talk elected president will have to use TTS to take the oath? Or type it on keyboard? What if he also cannot raise his right arm?



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: justicesforall
A disabled person who cannot talk elected president will have to use TTS to take the oath? Or type it on keyboard? What if he also cannot raise his right arm?


Raising your right hand is not a requirement to take the Oath. It's a tradition that we use but not a legal requirement.

I don't see why TTS would be an issue either.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
about the birth certificate which was used to demonstrate Obama's legitimacy to hold the office of president,


Except once again birthers get it wrong - Obama's BC was not used for that.

A President does not even need a BC - try reading the Constitution!

where is Trump's, and those of all previous Presidents BC's? According to you they must have shown it to prove their legitimacy.... unless you think only black people have to show their BC's!

So 8 years after Obama was sworn in as President, after every single silly birther court case failed, (over 200 of them) some people are still trying to claim Obama was not really the POTUS!
Pathetic really.
edit on 20-1-2017 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
A logical thinker wouldn't think this.

Rolls eyes.


You mean an abstract thinker wouldn't think like this. A logical thinker absolutely would and does think like this.

In law, every word, jot, tittle, comma, so to speak, means everything.

Actually, in language in general. But the law demands the perfection of language.

Although, it is obvious that Obama has been President, the OP raises an interesting topic. I dig it.

By the way, Chief Justice Roberts is technically a republican. It might be that Roberts was more implying that Obama better believe in Roberts' God, and maintain Presidential tradition - seeing as how he was wise enough to know Obama's true atheistic and anti-Constitutional point of view.

I see this as Roberts' giving of a test as well. But the test is not unconstitutional unless it is forced. It wasn't forced. Obama made his choice to answer. He could have said, "So help me the People". He would still be President and his oath would be valid, for all that was said before, it's constitutional. The last line is opinion, or affirmation of the derivation of power.

So, yes, I like the topic, but it should be seen through this lens. Obama is the 44th President of the U.S.A.
edit on 1/20/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Glad you enjoyed the topic!

However, the point I was trying to make is that if Obama had said "No," in response to the question, he would not have affirmed his Oath. So, he was forced to answer in the affirmative -- it was the only 'correct' answer.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That's why I said he could have simply affirmed an alternative. Then the oath is complete. Being a Constitutional lawyer, he would know that.

He cared more about approval rating, so he simply affirmed in the positive to the question. That was his personal choice.

If he said, "No", then I agree with you. That didn't and probably wouldn't happen to someone who knows legalese.

ETA - when I took the oath in the Marines, they allowed alternative affirmation; in fact, the alternative "affirm" is in print next to "swear" for the non-religious or the religious who are superstitious of swearing.
edit on 1/20/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Legally speaking, Obama had already made his choice clear in the affidavit I posted. Roberts did not follow Obama's wishes -- also in the affidavit I posted. How the Oath concluded was entirely up to Obama, not Roberts.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly friend.

Roberts' wishes didn't matter.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly friend.

Roberts' wishes didn't matter.


And yet Roberts is the one who administered the Oath with a religious test at the end.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
BTW, when John Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice, his Oath was concluded with a recitation of the words, "So help me God." No question/religious test.

I thought that was interesting.

Link



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly friend.

Roberts' wishes didn't matter.


And yet Roberts is the one who administered the Oath with a religious test at the end.


Tradition modified into a question of derivation of power. Doesn't hinder the Oath unless Obama allows it to do so. Obama didn't.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join