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: 3
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
He's just illustrating what we all already know.

This whole thing is made up fantasy.

The only power anyone has is the same as they've ever had. All laws and regs and taxes and culture and all everything is based on violent enforcement.

The only reason you or I submit to any law (especially the prohibitionary and extortion requirements) is because there is a large number of people willing to shoot us if we don't.

Like nesting dolls. The small doll with one gun or no gun obeys the bigger doll with more guns who obeys the even bigger doll with even more guns.

It has nothing to do with righteousness or abstract justice. It's simply being beaten into obedience.

The POTUS just happens to be the biggest doll withthe most guns. The only thing bigger is a confess united against him which we don't have.

Unicorns and Gremlins set up a bung of fantasy boundaries and made them real by shaping the walls with prisons and death threats.

That's all any of this is.

Obamas just acting on this knowledge.

The fact that so many would excuse it with "he's president, he doesnt have to abide" is disgusting. You're both openly admitting it's all arbitrary fantasy yet accepting that only your puny and insignificant self should be forced to obey it.

As if looking in the mirror and saying "I'm nothing, I'm # and I'll do whatever they tell me to because thy are special and I am not."

Depressing.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Also....

Executive Privilege


The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.



Oh, of course, "national security." Where have I heard that one before?

edit on 23-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

i agree with you 100 percent,it is sad and no diferent from the times of mafia control and gangs.basicly we are being treated no diferent then a dog.(obey the masters)lol,like it or not its as simple as that. is that not one of the reassons society was founded for? to unite forces for proteccion and equality? bow down to no man.

edit on 23-1-2012 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Also, to elaborate:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649:


"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens."


Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162:


"all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."


Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242:


"...for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."


The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253:


"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."


the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof."

Notice PARENTS. Plural. Obama's father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth. He knows this and he's ducking it as much as he can.
edit on 23-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
He ignores everything else. He is "Above the law" don't cha know.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
oh no. not soretto. he obviously is only being attacked because everyone whom seeks to find truth and ask questions is a racist. poor barry is just being picked on because hes not an old white guy. hahahahahaha...seriously tho, how is it that he can consistently run from this issue and now, assuming he really doesnt show up in court, how is it that he wont be held in contempt? why will he not have any negative legal implications for his actions?

silly me...i expect too much from my county...

its ok tho...the short fallings of our populations intelligence will no doubt push through another puppet president lol... i really wish all this ascension stuff would start happening faster so i can just go home. this show is getting played out; time to move on



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


I just looked at the President"s schedule via (The White House) website...and for January 26, 2012 it says: "No public schedule". www.whitehouse.gov...

The President's schedule also says the same for the 24th and 25th of January as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


Well here's a Las Vegas news source and Denver news source that are saying.

Las Vegas Wednesday and leaving Thursday morning and arriving in Denver later on.
edit on 23-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is what happens when you set a precedent for a president to behave unchecked.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is what happens when you set a precedent for a president to behave unchecked.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
There exists a doctrine calledexecutive privilege.

It states that members f the executive branch, the president and others, can resist certain subpoenas while in office. It has been tested several times and the SCOTUS has upheld the privilege.

One of the earliest examples of this privilege is detailed here:


Thomas Jefferson was the first president to face this problem, and he insisted that the president could not be independent of the judiciary if "he were subject to the commands of the latter" and "if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post." Similarly, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), Justice Joseph Story concluded that the president must be allowed to perform his duties "without obstruction...accountable only to his country, and to his own conscience."

source

As we can see the Justice Story set the precedent by allwing the resistance of the subpoena by allowing the the POTUS to use his own conscience to make the decision. Obama will not appear in the court and there will be no recourse by the GA judge but to accept this fact. I think the GA judge is only doing this to grab .lines anyway. He knows the privilege exists, and if he doesnt, he will soon.
edit on 23-1-2012 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)


I thank you for pointing out this little "fact" to the Obama haters posting in this thread. I swear, if the republicans weren't so ignorant, they'd be dangerous. And to think that they get offended when articles like this one make the cover of Newsweek. Go figure!







edit on 23-1-2012 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Thanks for the info. It seems to me that legal loopholes in the law were found by the President's legal counsel; and he himself does not need to appear in the Georgia court.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Did you conveniently overlook my fact? How about this one? I'm sure you would purposely ignore them because they aren't exactly in Barry's favor. In fact they go against everything you and him stand for.

Ah Andrew Sullivan. A homosexual who claims himself as a conservative says Obama's "the man with a plan," huh? Sure seems like it to me! A plan to run this country straight into the #ing ground.




Not to mention Newsweek's editor Tina Brown is a democrat who refers to the GOP as suicide bombers. That's totally non biased, huh? She's another MSM loon and you're a retard if you think that cover means anything other than the constant praise the MSM is always giving King Barry to sway people away from the change this country actually needs. You'll defend to the end your democratic stance even though you know it's wrong and you know it's failing. That's what makes people like YOU dangerous. You're plugging your ears and screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" while you're ruining my country. I'm not sure about you but I don't like where the US is .ed. You like the Patriot Act? SOPA? NDAA? We'll see how much you enjoy it once your precious king turns on you because he doesn't give a # about you.

I guess we're super dumb! Joke's on you.

edit on 23-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
The President won't be arrested. They didn't even arrest Clinton, and there was no denying what he did...

It'll be a lot of ruckus, but hey: money fixes everything.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


aint that the sad, sad truth.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

I thank you for pointing out this little "fact" to the Obama haters posting in this thread. I swear, if the republicans weren't so ignorant, they'd be dangerous. And to think that they get offended when articles like this one make the cover of Newsweek. Go figure!




Love it.
I'm not exactly a 'fan' of the Prez but I remain rational in any criticism I have for him or any member of the government. I look at some of these people that show up to posts with their virtual pitchforks and signs ranting about one issue, then no sooner then its shown that they're stance was wrong on that issue, they have new signs and fresh pitchforks for the next 'issue' that they have no informational grasp of and mindlessly, and ignorantly spread their uninformed hatred to other "uninformed and too lazy to change it so ill take what this random guy said and run with it"s.
edit on Mon Jan 23 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



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

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Did you conveniently overlook my fact? How about this one? I'm sure you would purposely ignore them because they aren't exactly in Barry's favor.



And this is exactly why those types of articles make the cover of Newsweek. These statistics don't mean anything. Did you really expect that our unemployment rate could be improved overnight? You do understand that we were losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office, don't you? Did you really expect that our deficits would go down overnight? You do understand that G.W. Bush enacted tax cuts for the rich while simultaneously taking us to war in two foreign countries and enacting an unfunded Part D Medicare program, don't you? Etc...etc...etc...

I mean really, sooner or later, the ill effects of those actions will be felt resulting in the statistics you posted. Once you drive a car off a cliff, it's kinda difficult to pick up the pieces until after it hits the canyon floor.


Originally posted by r3axion
I guess we're super dumb!


It's your guess, and I'd say you were right. Apparently, the nice people at Newsweek agree.

edit on 23-1-2012 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Jan 23 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
These statistics don't mean anything.


lmao that speaks volumes to me.



Did you really expect that our unemployment rate could be improved overnight?


Over night? No. Over four years? Yes. What was Obama's slogan again?


For the record, Bush was just as #ty.



I mean really, sooner or later, the ill effects of those actions will be felt resulting in the statistics you posted. Once you drive a car off a cliff, it's kinda difficult to pick up the pieces until after it hits the canyon floor.


He could start with undoing all the idiotic # set in place....like bailouts for example....


Apparently, the nice people at Newsweek agree.


I'm sorry, I don't rely on mainstream logic. That's the type of thinking that has us where we are.

edit on 23-1-2012 by r3axion because: edit



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
It seems to me that legal loopholes in the law were found by the President's legal counsel; and he himself does not need to appear in the Georgia court.


These "legal loopholes" have existed since Washington invoked executive privilege in 1796. They were not found by the President's legal counsel.

History of Executive Privilege



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join