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

reply to post by Indigo5


Subpoena = for Obama

Obama = in Denver tomorrow.

Ruling = Barry Obama ineligible to be on Georgia ballot for failure to comply with legal subpoena or give a formal statement as to why the subpoena should be considered oppressive.

It is the state's decision who makes the ballot and who doesn't. It isn't a right to be on a ballot.

Yea, I told my Uncle this and he started yelling at me, so what's the real deal is this going to fly.
What is he afraid, the guy he voted for is a bum, and where are all the debunkers who are yelling their heads off birther, birther, birther, nay, na, na, a Nay,ya.

It looks like a lot are shutting up now.

reply to post by googolplex


It'll fly for him legally. But not as a candidate in the Georgia state ballot, I don't think. Unfortunately that won't really affect him much. The first steps to acceptance are always denial and anger so hopefully this means your uncle is opening his eyes. A lot more people need to.

As much as I'd love to have Ron Paul be my president, I'm almost positive Obummer will be reelected for another term.

God help us.

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Ruling = Barry Obama ineligible to be on Georgia ballot for failure to comply with legal subpoena or give a formal statement as to why the subpoena should be considered oppressive.

The reason the subpoena is invalid is in the constitution. It is called “separation of powers” and if the judge wants to challenge that precedent then he is out of skull or professionally suicidal. We will find out how loony he really is tomorrow, but I suspect his eagerness to keep his job and collect a federal pension will trump his birther streak.

reply to post by Indigo5


That's actually not in the Constitution at all...

www.usconstitution.net...

Though it may be implied or even directly stated in some news reports, blog postings, or web sites, there is no clause of the Constitution that is called the "Separation of Powers Clause." This is because there is no one clause that says "separation of powers" or "checks and balances" or any other phrase that is used synonymously. The concept of the Separation of Powers is written into the first three articles of the Constitution, as detailed elsewhere.

Better yet....

Trias Politicia

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.

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.

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.

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. I hope Obama doesnt appear. I hope the Judge has the balls to issue a warrant. I doubt that he will though. If he does I would vote him into ANY office he runs for. If Obama as the leader of our country is charged with choosing those that sit on the judicial bench of the Supreme Court then he SHOULD be held to the same laws as the rest of us. Why should he be above them. I guarantee this though. He will find a way out of it because reality is that he IS above the law in his MIND and the minds of many in government and big business and the banking system. THAT is why we need SERIOUS reform in government. Serious in a way that cannot be legally spoken of. Remember the framers. OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.

reply to post by Indigo5


There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that EXEMPTS the President from a Judicial Order. He is bound by the same laws we all are. If you believe that there is something in the Constitution that exempts him you are either twisting the words written or you are following words that are not legal. OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE!

reply to post by candcantiques


Absolutely agree with everything you just said.

People have forgotten what this country was founded on. It's sad to see them settling for less.

reply to post by Indigo5

Checks and balances? Civics?...rational thinking?...Anyone?

Did Nixon turn over the tapes because he wanted to?

Seems like he was not happy about it. I think he was forced to somehow. A judge, I think, insisted.

Don't need him to be there. But if he blows them off it will go against him.

Too bad the Judge works for Georgia and not Fed Gov, Obama could just fire him.

Nixon initially refused to release the tapes, claiming they were vital to national security. Then, on October 19, 1973, he offered to have U.S. Senator John C. Stennis, a Democrat, review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office. Independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox refused the compromise and on Saturday, October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson to dismiss Cox. Richardson refused and resigned instead, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Finally, Solicitor General and acting head of the Justice Department Robert Bork discharged Cox.
Nixon appointed Leon Jaworski special counsel on November 1, 1973.

Originally posted by mrnotobc

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by kozmo

 

Communist Obamacare?

How is buying private health insurance communist?

It's very simple. You must not be very smart if you don't understand why it's commie. This is why.

I'm self employed. I don't have health insurance. Under Obama's communist plan, I have a choice. Either buy someone's overpriced insurance, that I may or may not be able to afford, of pay $750 a year for the privilege of not having insurance.

That way I'll have even less money to pay my doctor than I do now.

Any questions?

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

Yes I have a question.

If you buy health insurance..............you are buying health insurance. The fact that it is mandated does not equate to communism. Communism would be complete control over healthcare where the federal government runs the insurance, the regulations and the profits. This is not the case with Obamacare.

You've clearly stated your stance on Obama in general. You are self employed. You are a republican no doubt and you see communists in your cheerios. No one is after your money. What the plan is meant to do is insure everyone medically. I do not personally like the plan either. The difference is that I don't cry commie everytime I disagree with something or just because Obama did it.

reply to post by spinalremain


DID YOU READ WHAT HE WROTE!

He has to pay a 750 fine for having no insurance.

And then he still has no insurance...

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by spinalremain

 

DID YOU READ WHAT HE WROTE!

He has to pay a 750 fine for having no insurance.

And then he still has no insurance...

Is that what he said?

Where does he say he is paying a fine? Please explain the fine part to me.

And please clarify timeline. $750 a year.

reply to post by Annee

Where does he say he is paying a fine? Please explain the fine part to me.

Hi Annee

The new Health Insurance law requires that everyone have health insurance.

If you fail to buy health insurance, they charge you a fine.

If you refuse to pay the fine they put you in jail.

Once you are in jail, your healthcare is covered by the government. So it's all good.

Probably easy to look up the details. Just check your local unreliable birther website...

Link to site with details

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

Barry's on Rothschild payroll and who does Rothschild own?

Talk about hung jury

Originally posted by The Sword
The train left not too long ago for most of you calling for him to obey an order from a puny state judge.

He's the PRESIDENT, not a police chief, not a mayor and certainly not a senator!

Is he above the Law?

Will he become the new Nixon,Or Clinton,bargaining his way into talking about it ?
Waste Taxpayers money and time,along the way ?

Defending him like hes a KING ?

reply to post by kawika


A Republican Ways and Means website?

No bias there.

reply to post by Annee


Well, Annee,

It is a law. You have google.

You look it up.

Maybe if you write an email to Nancy she would send you a copy to read.

reply to post by timetothink


If you consider WHO put him in office and WHO protects him it truly doesnt matter how many lawsuits are filed. WHO has the power in this world according to the law. That is the only truth that exists in this world today. Time magazine showed a picture of the Constitution being shredded in an attempt to get people primed for the end of that which has always protected the people of this country. Those who are not willing to stand deserve what they get. Those that have financed through their taxes that which would defeat us deserve what they get.Those that believe that there is still a chance to defeat the worst that would choose to defeat freedom by voting shall be defeated. There is a time and it is now. Many will die. Just as in the begining of this country.Many will die for true freedom. Is there anyonme that is willing to fight though. I submit that most are cowardly and willing to accept whatever they are told. That in itself is what will defeat that which protects us from the evil in this world. If you choose to be a coward be ready to live the life of a coward. We revear those that wrote the Constitution but we choose not to fight and put our lives on the line like they did. YOU have to choose. COWARD or defender of the CONSTITUTION. Last chance.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee

 

Well, Annee,

It is a law. You have google.

You look it up.

First off - - I 100% support a national health care system.

2nd - - a selected excerpt from a whole - - on a Republican website - - is misleading.

I haven't read it in full from an unbiased source - - but I do remember reading it was written by Republicans (or at least part of it).

reply to post by Annee


Annee, it seems unlikely that the people who are in favor of the health care law would promote knowledge of the fines and punishments that go with it. What I mean is, if you want to know about the downside, the best place to find that is going to be brand X.

But it is law so it should be possible to find the actual law, and dig it out.

I look forward to reading your analysis.

Link to ATS thread on Healthcare law

Gotta go to work soon, see you here tomorrow.

K