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.

 

So... if the President is "Barry Soetoro" does that open doors for Schwarzenegger to run for Pres

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
So If the president wasn't born in the United States and has already sat as the President, does that make a legal precedent for Arnold Schwarznegger to run for President?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 18-4-2011 by PsychNurse because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychNurse
 

No chance, Obama will be the next president and the last.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Of course not. If Obama DID get in on false information (not judging either way here because I don't know) that would not change the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PoopDawg
 


I'm a Canadian... I'm not making a judgement or view. Just asking a question. I actually like Obama. I hope he does get back into office.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 




Agreed... But In a court of law would it establish a precedent that could be argues? Let's not forget an entire election was decided in the court room. Bush vs Gore.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychNurse
Agreed... But In a court of law would it establish a precedent that could be argues?
Only a court could create the precedent, after judgment.

Don’t you think it would be a silly way of a running a judicial system if someone’s illegal conduct created a binding precedent?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Jean-Claude Van Damme would be a good candidate, I guess...



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychNurse
reply to post by schuyler
 


Agreed... But In a court of law would it establish a precedent that could be argues? Let's not forget an entire election was decided in the court room. Bush vs Gore.


Unlikely. The Constitution is pretty clear on that point. It's not like the second amendment, where people hang their hat on "a well regulated militia" to "prove" the right to own and carry is not a personal right, but a collective one. Either Obama got in as a fraud or he got in legitimately. That he could have fraudulently been elected does not "establish precendent" any more than someone murdering another person established a precedent that murder is okay. A crime does not establish precedent.

Oh, what aptness said. I didn't see that.
edit on 4/18/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/18/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I couldn't even believe he announced his re-election bid. Obama will fail the same way Carter did in 1980..



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
No.

I'll make a court room analogy to show you why.

Say bob is accused of murder. Say bob pays someone to falsely claim that he witnessed bob at a bar the night of the murder, giving him an alibi. Then he gets found innocent because of the witness, and later on the court finds out the witness was lying.

This would not set a precedent that it's OK to pay a witness to claim he saw you, when in fact he did not, just because bob's verdict was based on a lie.

Just like, ASSUMING (I personally don't agree with this) Obama wasn't born in the US, him being elected would have been based on a lie.

Precedents are set when a decision is made on a situation. Not when someone lies or cheats their way into something.

Now, if BEFORE he ran for president, he openly said "I was not born in the US" and he STILL was allowed to run, and got elected, I could definitely see the argument that a precedent was set as being valid.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the input.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join