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.

 

Obama To Ignore Judge’s Ruling To Appear In Court Over Eligibility Hearing

page: 10
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion

The concept of the Separation of Powers is written into the first three articles of the Constitution, as detailed elsewhere.




Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch. However, the branches are interrelated. They cooperate with one another and also prevent one another from attempting to assume too much power. This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to contain and modify the power of another.


And Congress has the sole authority to impeach a President. The Judicial branch may declare legislation invalid...it may not compell a sitting President to act, appear where they demand..etc. The Judicial Branch's power is limited to declaring laws valid or invalid.


Originally posted by r3axion

Under the system of checks and balances, each branch acts as a restraint on the powers of the other two. The president can either sign the legislation of Congress, making it law, or Veto it. The Congress, through the Senate, has the power of advise and consent on presidential appointments and can therefore reject an appointee. The courts, given the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the laws, can uphold or overturn acts of the legislature or rule on actions by the president.


Read your excerpt carefully. Where does it give the Judicial branch authority to compell the Executive Branch in action or speech? They can not demand a sitting President appear in court ona given day or answer specific questions, that would subjagate the executive branch to the Judicial.



Obama isn't supreme king overlord like you're trying to imply. This state court has every right question to question his Constitutional eligibility in their state ballot[/i


Please don't act ignorant...Where have I declared the Executive Branch as a "Supreme King Overlord"? The Executive branch is one of the three equal powers of government. Neither can command the other...if the Executive branch had command over the courts, the President could simply imprison the court that challenged him and dismiss the charges. Nor can the court demand the president appear before it...they CAN NOT command the executive branch.

The Executive Branch is subject to impeachment by the congress. It is not at the mercy of the courts, otherwise the courts would rule the country and all of DC.

Please stop feigning you don't understand this simple lesson taught in any civics class.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Who's the ignorant one?

The court isn't trying to impeach Obama. What don't you understand about this being about his legitimacy to be on the state ballot?

It simply means Obama will not be able to be voted for in the state of Georgia.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
My personal belief is that Obama is just like everyone else. He may be President but when a judge issues an order for you to appear you appear. If you do not then a bench warrant is issued.


You might think this is a good form of government, but imagine if the courts worked this way during our last administratrion? President Bush, Cheney...his entire staff would have been in the courts weekly rather than serving the country and they very likely would have been detained by one of the liberal leaning judges.

Our system was set up to NOT cripple government on the whims of idealogical lawsuits.

It would render the Judicial Branch as the supreme power in the country. Politicians would curry favor with judges they appoint, money would flow into the courts corrupting them and any Politician that didn't pander to the Judges would be imprisoned on silly charges or at the least find themselves spending every moment and millions battling frivolous lawsuits.

You can impeach a President, the Judicial branch cannot command them to appear in every court for every lawsuit that arises during there Presidencey.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The subpoena was only issued because even the President deserves a fair trial in a case involving his legitimacy on the state ballot. This way, when he isn't allowed on the ballot, no one can say the court didn't try to give him a fair trial. No one's trying to arrest Obama so calm down and use your brain, please.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Still not getting it?

Lets take the case of President Clinton...

the Supreme Court in Clinton v Jones .And this was a Conservative Court...




We assume that the testimony of the President, both for discovery and for use at trial, may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule, and that, if a trial is held, there would be no necessity for the President to attend in person, though he could elect to do so. [14]

Although Presidents have responded to written interrogatories, given depositions, and provided videotaped trial testimony, see infra, at 704705, no sitting President has ever testified, or been ordered to testify, in open court.

First, because the claim of immunity is asserted in a federal court and relies heavily on the doctrine of separation of powers that restrains each of the three branches of the Federal Government from encroaching on the domain of the other two, see, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 122 (1976) (per curiam), it is not necessary to consider or decide whether a comparable claim might succeed in a state tribunal.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You are not thinking. I dont believe that there is one judge alive that would issue such an order frivolously. This is NOT a frivolous legal suit. The President has not met the qualifications to be President. The Judge knows this or he would not have given the order for Obama to appear. Any judge ANYWHERE inside of the United States has the right to order the President to appear in response to the mans qualifications to run for President. HE IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW, IN FACT HE IS BOUND BY IT. Wake up you liberal non thinker.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Taken from this thread regarding the live broadcast of the trial.


So far, it has been declared that Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and never became a citizen of the United States. The Constitution states that only a natural born citizen can hold office, and a natural born citizen is defined by a citizen born within the United States and that BOTH parents must be legal citizens of the country.

An investigator is at the stand saying Obama's SSN wasn't issued until his teens, and the number refers to Connecticut rather than the birthplace on his birth certificate - Hawaii. AND!! It's from 1890...
edit on 26-1-2012 by Figzer because: (no reason given)


Now there's a professional graphic editor saying his birth certificate shows clear signs of multiple layers applied to one another to form the long form birth certificate found on whitehouse.gov.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Figzer because: (no reason given)
He goes on to say that anyone with Photoshop can take the file that contains the birth certificate and remove the layers.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Figzer because: (no reason given)


Some lady said his tax return and his SSN didn't match up.

There's a copy machine expert saying the bends displayed on the digital birth certificate are normal when copied from a book. He goes on to say there should be a clear image of the embossed seal on the digital copy, but there isn't one.

I can barely hear what's going on, so forgive any mistakes.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Figzer because: (no reason given)


Where's all the birther haters now?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The subpoena was only issued because even the President deserves a fair trial in a case involving his legitimacy on the state ballot. This way, when he isn't allowed on the ballot, no one can say the court didn't try to give him a fair trial. No one's trying to arrest Obama so calm down and use your brain, please.


Whether he appears in the court or not is the Executive Branch's perogative, not the Judicial branch...and certainly not at the state level as Federal Law, not state, would be at play if a State Court felt they had the ability to command a sitting President.

I keep saying the same thing and you keep changing the subject or pretending you don't get it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You're obviously the one not getting it. I said no one's trying to arrest him. Sure he's allowed to not show up, but the state is also allowed to decide he can't be on the ballot. Geddit?

See post above...

edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


I don't know what else to tell you..."It has been declared"???...you mean a birther said something?

This is going to painful for birthers....Orly might get a heavy fine again...The judge will conveniently not notice that the President did not obey his command...it is going to be a fun day
I will see what I can find on the proceedings from a nuetral source...."It has been declared"?? That was great! Did the Judge "Declare it"? Or did one of Orly's people? Awesome comedy factor here.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It's a widely known fact Obama's dad was not an American citizen.....how are you going to argue when you don't even know the facts? Jesus.

The controversy was behind whether or not he's natural born because his mother was a citizen. But according to many Supreme Court rulings, both parents must be citizens.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You're obviously the one not getting it. I said no one's trying to arrest him. Sure he's allowed to not show up, but the state is also allowed to decide he can't be on the ballot. Geddit?

See post above...

edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


What you are describing is not a legitmate Subpeona then.

And the state can not put him on the ballot, but not for his failure to appear.

AND if you think Georgia is going to not put him on the Ballot, you are going to be very dissapointed, sorry...but that is the truth. I am actually starting to feel sorry for the birther crowd. At this stage it seems like self-abuse.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It's okay, you've been duped. Denial is the first stage to acceptance



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
For some reason, roughly around 10:45 AM, this "Article ii Superpac" live feed went dark, and Superpac has not posted an explanation.

Does anyone know what's happening??



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The subpoena was only issued because even the President deserves a fair trial in a case involving his legitimacy on the state ballot. This way, when he isn't allowed on the ballot, no one can say the court didn't try to give him a fair trial. No one's trying to arrest Obama so calm down and use your brain, please.


This is a political witch hunt, if someone constantly took you to court, made you spend
all kinds of time and money, wouldn't the people around you be a bit pissed on your behalf?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Shoonra
 


I assumed it was over because I never got to watch it.

No idea...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It's a widely known fact Obama's dad was not an American citizen.....how are you going to argue when you don't even know the facts? Jesus.

The controversy was behind whether or not he's natural born because his mother was a citizen. But according to many Supreme Court rulings, both parents must be citizens.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


Really? WTF are you doing...you want to start the "Natural Born Citizen" definition debate again?

Some crazy desperation here.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra
For some reason, roughly around 10:45 AM, this "Article ii Superpac" live feed went dark, and Superpac has not posted an explanation.

Does anyone know what's happening??


I think maybe that was when they heard the court fines that were likely handed down to Orly and crew and they realized they couldn't afford to keep filming?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It's a widely known fact Obama's dad was not an American citizen.....how are you going to argue when you don't even know the facts? Jesus.

The controversy was behind whether or not he's natural born because his mother was a citizen. But according to many Supreme Court rulings, both parents must be citizens.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)


Really? WTF are you doing...you want to start the "Natural Born Citizen" definition debate again?

Some crazy desperation here.


..........That's what this is about............
You have got to be kidding me. You aren't even aware why he's been called to court, and you're arguing.

Maybe you missed this. But I assume you're going to argue with words from the Supreme Court now.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Shoonra
For some reason, roughly around 10:45 AM, this "Article ii Superpac" live feed went dark, and Superpac has not posted an explanation.

Does anyone know what's happening??


I think maybe that was when they heard the court fines that were likely handed down to Orly and crew and they realized they couldn't afford to keep filming?


uh...the Political Action Committee was the one filming.......lol

you're absolutely full of fail today.
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join