Is "The Anointed One" Above the Law? Letter from GA Secretary of State, Brian Kemp to Obama's At

Why is it okay for Obama not to show up in Court today in Georgia???? Well maybe it's not okay according to Brian Kemp, Georgia's Secretary of State. The title of this thread with "the Anointed one" is frankly just a jab.....the truth is, Obama needs to be held accountable for his elegibility for President, regardless of which side you are on, birthers or otherwise! Personally, I'm sick and tired of this man walking around with his head and nose in the air having this repulsive condescending attitude, flying his dog "BACK" to the white house for a photo shoot, (BY ITSELF) costing tax payers a boat load (link below) and thinking he is above the law..WTF???

I will be awaiting the Judges orders and how Brian Kemps office will handle this one! Below is the letter from the Secretary of state as of yesterday, January 25, 2012,



docs.google.com...

www.theblaze.com...

He can like everyone else contact the court and let them know you intend to honor commitments but are physicly unable to. This is key to postponement.

However if your guilty as sin and you dont want your legal representatives to answer for you then you do nothing.

reply to post by Angelicdefender2012


Great post, I love the letter.

"Do so at your own peril" HA

Yesterday, the Georgia Secretary of State, Republican Brian Kemp, wrote a strongly-worded letter to President Barack Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, warning him that “if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the… proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Link to obscure birther source

Ya think I will lose if I submit no evidence and don't bother to show up, ya think??

Hey, I am paying good money for this advice, you are my lawyer, you had better be right about this!

Oh, pro-bono?? never mind. GET WHAT CHA PAY FOR...

By the way, my new years resolution is to stop responding to ill informed Obots. I am ignoring you.

Obama has no constitutional requirement to show up in a state court. This article explains it:

Serving the President

Could any two-bit local prosecutor subpoena the president? Fortunately, as a matter of federalism, there are well-established principles for distinguishing federal subpoenas from local ones and for recognizing presidential immunity from the latter.

In the early decades of the 19th century, several states tried to prevent the congressionally chartered Bank of the United States from operating within their borders and competing against state-chartered banks. In 1819, the Supreme Court struck down a stiff Maryland tax on national bank notes. As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out, the people of Maryland were represented in Congress as a part of the whole, but the rest of the nation was not represented in the Maryland legislature. The national government could not be held hostage to the intense policy preferences of a political minority that happened to control a state government. Similarly, the president cannot be held hostage to the whims of a local prosecutor or trial judge, even if the motives of the state court are sound. The constitutional consequences of placing the president within the power of a state court are too severe to depend merely on good faith.

So, he is not "above the law." In fact, he's following the law. I wish people would stop pretending they are lawyers when they are not. Do not make sweeping claims about how bad and elitist Obama is without actually knowing if he is following the law or not.

reply to post by Angelicdefender2012


Is Glenn Beck on the boards here? Or perhaps this is a Hannity blog? I know we haven't heard from Sarah since her husband hightailed it on her but who else I wonder calls Obama The Anointed One? Mis leading as part of the header since doesn't that have to be an accurate quote from your News source?....If not I have been doing it all wrong! lol That personal touch just sort of screams "Tea Party" bias to me. After that I have to say some objectivity and credibility goes straight down the tubes. The expression is to many people sort of a sacrilege and at the very least an insult to Catholics.

reply to post by spacekc929


Correct.

If he only wants to run in 49 states he can.

According to him we have 56 noooo...... 57 states anyway.

Originally posted by spacekc929
So, he is not "above the law." In fact, he's following the law.

Actually, not exactly. There is more than one way to be 'following the law' in this. He's legally using a loophole in the law to get out of showing up. If he showed up he would also be 'following the law'.

But at his own peril he wont be voted on in Georgia
Now California needs to follow suit and the Obama show is over

All candidates for President are thoroughly vetted. That is the end of the discussion. No President in the past or in the future owes you anything as far as proof is concerned. It's crap like this that makes me long for the days of the past when the internet didn't exist. It's just stupid.

Even if he did show up to the dog and pony show, and provided everything he was asked for, here are the responses that would appear on ATS:

1. I can't believe this Socialist wasted tax payer money on this!

2. It's been rigged by the powers that be!

3. That judge was told to get in line or he would "disappear".

4. Photo's of the document or it didn't happen.

5. I've examined the scan of the photo of a screen shot from a zoom into the paper being held by Obama at the hearing and it is definitely forged.

6. I'm too smart to fall for this!

Basically, you have one group of people (9/11) that puts forth that the government executed such an elaborate plan, yet these same minds can't seem to forge a birth certificate adequately. If they needed to...they could.

They don't need to.

Originally posted by sweetnlow
But at his own peril he wont be voted on in Georgia

Now California needs to follow suit and the Obama show is over

I'll bet you my life savings that Obama is on the Presidential ballot in all 50 states.

Originally posted by Angelicdefender2012
Why is it okay for Obama not to show up in Court today in Georgia?

It isn't hard to understand. Eligibility of the president is left up to congress and the electoral college, not to the individual state courts. Only a Federal court or the supreme court can really summon Obama to appear or question his records. It is naive to believe that everytime a citizen accuses the president of something in court, the president must appear in person. To think such a thing is outside of reality.

the truth is, Obama needs to be held accountable for his elegibility for President, regardless of which side you are on, birthers or otherwise!

The GA judge gave Orly and her birther pals another opportunity to present their case, this is it. The judge has not concluded whether he will seek to have Obama removed from the ballot in GA. I doubt he would, and I doubt that he intends to do this, as such a thing is outside of his authority.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of this man walking around with his head and nose in the air having this repulsive condescending attitude flying his dog "BACK" to the white house for a photo shoot,

So this is really about your personal issues with Obama, not really as to whether he is constitutionally eligible? His eligibility is the only thing we should be concerned about, your personal issues with him only add to bias.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by sweetnlow
But at his own peril he wont be voted on in Georgia

Now California needs to follow suit and the Obama show is over

I'll bet you my life savings that Obama is on the Presidential ballot in all 50 states.

Of course, you're right. I made a joke the other day about Obama and Dog the Bounty Hunter, but it was just a joke.

I know a lot of people would love to see it happen, but it just can't and won't. If you could sue the President, nearly every President we've ever had would have a long list of lawsuits against him.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Actually, not exactly. There is more than one way to be 'following the law' in this. He's legally using a loophole

It's not a loop hole at all. The eligibility and vetting of the president is left to that of Congress and the Electoral college, not the individual State courts. You're of the position that everytime a private citizen questions the legitimacy of the presidency in any court and there is a request made, the president must appear and defend himself, this is outside of reality flyers fan.

Edit: wrong thread post. =]

if there is any truth to this story at all, this Judge is going to have a real rough future...
i know that it is hard to get a judge disbarred, but this might warrant it...
this judge (if this story is actually true) appears to be abusing his position to push a political agenda...

he knew that president obama wasn't going to come...
he knew he was out of his jurisdiction...

i'm sure nothing will happen though, obama appears to have grown accustom to the haters...

Is this a suit against Obama in his official capacity? or in his personal capacity? Was he subpoenaed? or was he just served process? You are not required to do anything if you are the respondent in a civil case - it simply means that judgment is entered against you by default.

Lest we forget that, in his official capacity, Mr.Obama (and the office of President) has/have civil immunity.

reply to post by spacekc929


Dear Spacekc929,

Tell me then......how is it that President Clinton (while sitting President) was ordered to show up in a civil law suit filed against him by Paula Jones? How did this judge get hin in court?

You are correct to "ASSUME" I'm not an attorney, however I have done paralegal work and my HUSBAND IS an Attorney and frankly he is ranked as one of the top in the world. And, for your information........the sitting "PRESIDENT" is not immune from law litigation for acts done BEFORE TAKING OFFICE. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) reads......

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office ......now it does say and issues unrelated to office. However, this issue could be for S.S. fraud (which it is) So technically speaking it would be conduct outside of the office. Therefore based on the law......you would loose this argument. But thanks for trying, better luck next time.


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by newcovenant


You obviously..missed the point. As stated in the guts of my OP......it was simply a jab. And, just so you know........I'm a registered DEMOCRAT.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Your signature speaks volumes about your personal views....which are posted to everything you reply to. Care to examine your own views as closely as you "think" you are examining mine?

Originally posted by Angelicdefender2012
reply to post by newcovenant

 

You obviously..missed the point. As stated in the guts of my OP......it was simply a jab. And, just so you know........I'm a registered DEMOCRAT.

No I think I got the point. I even got the jab.
A democrat? Wow. And you are telling me this because...?
The point is your name calling and attempt to be cutsie takes away from the seriousness and impact of everything else you have to say. Just imo anyway. ...I mean unless you are directing this to the h8ters and then you are sort of preaching to the choir.