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 can be legally executed for his illegal alien amnesty of 2012

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


they know exactly what they are doing.
MSM is there cheerleaders and laws dont matter.
we dont even know if he is a legal president.
but he's been elected twice.
ya..they know exactly what their doing.




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Only IF

He goes to court, and has a jury of his peers,gets convicted. and only if the judge calls for that kind of sentence.

OF WHICH

None is going to ever happen.



edit on 25-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Only IF

He goes to court, and has a jury of his peers,gets convicted. and only if the judge calls for that kind of sentence.

OF WHICH

None is going to ever happen.




Of course it's not going to happen, but republicans should at least point out the seriousness of obama's crimes. Romney should have talked about this last year.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by flyswatter
Here's the response you'll get from the Justice Department:
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

Short story ... no, OP. You're very, very wrong.


Show me where the constitution says that.


Ok, show me where anything you have said is contained in the Constitution. I'll wait patiently.

Part of what has been determined on this matter:

"U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. The textual argument that the criminal prosecution of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by the Senate arises from the reference to the "Party convicted" being liable for "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton's discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos. 65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of impeachment. OLC Memo at 2.4"

www.justice.gov...

There is a lot to read at that link, and some of it is very dry material. But what you can determine, as if there was any doubt in the first place:

In order for a sitting President to be prosecuted, they first have to be removed from office by way of Senatorial prosecution and removal from office.

And the final note given in there:

"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution."

Randolph D. Moss
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel



After a President is impeached and removed from office, they can then be brought up on whatever criminal charges may be pending.
edit on 25-7-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45


www.law.cornell.edu...



a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who— (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs— ((iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.



You did read the "in violation of the law" part right? If the law allows them to stay...they are not Illegal...and the POTUS hasn't done anything Illegal...

this law is aimed at "coyotes" that might pack 100 mexicans into the back of a truck during a heatwave or leave a family in the desert when the water runs out.
edit on 25-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Who's going to investigate this, John Boehner? Hahahahahahaha

Wait, no, Eric Holder? Hahahahahahahahahaha



Holder won't do anything but yes, Boehner and the rest of the House could investigate this. They ought to at least point out that obozo is breaking the law when he encourages illegals to come here. Breaking a very serious law that carries serious penalties.


Boehner is just as much a loser as Holder is! Lol.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by TheMagus

Originally posted by VoidHawk
woohoo, whens the show?


when the SS shows up
at OP's home




I think all the leaders of the last few decades have proven they are immune from prosecution.


Then How can it be illegal to take the law into our own hands when the people who are supposed to enforce those laws for us - We The People - won't do it?

According to the Constitution if the Government has become tyrannical - we have the right to march into the White House and blow his fool head off.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
They didn't do it when Reagan did it so why would they execute Obama for it? Reagan was the greatest coyote in US history.
Reagan had no interest in destroying the US of A and shredding the constitution.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Why are expressions such as"when pigs fly","only in a blue moon","That would be the day"coming to mind?I know...because it will NEVER happen law or not.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

Originally posted by buster2010
They didn't do it when Reagan did it so why would they execute Obama for it? Reagan was the greatest coyote in US history.
Reagan had no interest in destroying the US of A and shredding the constitution.


And Regean was lied to. He was promised border security if he agreed to amnesty and once that was signed they never secured the border.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


this law is aimed at "coyotes" that might pack 100 mexicans into the back of a truck during a heatwave or leave a family in the desert when the water runs out.
edit on 25-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Where does the law say that?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And Regean was lied to. He was promised border security if he agreed to amnesty and once that was signed they never secured the border.


And the damn fool should have seen that coming. I can never forgive reagan for the amnesty. It was bad for america and bad for the GOP.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawg61
Why are expressions such as"when pigs fly","only in a blue moon","That would be the day"coming to mind?I know...because it will NEVER happen law or not.


Probably true, but conservatives should point this out anyway, We literally have a criminal in the WH committing felonies every day and he's getting away with it.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Show me where the constitution says that.


Ok, show me where anything you have said is contained in the Constitution. I'll wait patiently.

Part of what has been determined on this matter:

"U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. The textual argument that the criminal prosecution of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by the Senate arises from the reference to the "Party convicted" being liable for "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton's discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos. 65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of impeachment. OLC Memo at 2.4"

www.justice.gov...



None of that has been "determined" as you put it, It's just some arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar. Fact is there is nothing in the constitution that says a president must first be removed from office before he can be criminally indicted. In fact it can be argued that since the constitution does not say who has authority to indict a sitting president, the authority thus rests with the states as per the tenth amendment.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And Regean was lied to. He was promised border security if he agreed to amnesty and once that was signed they never secured the border.


And the damn fool should have seen that coming. I can never forgive reagan for the amnesty. It was bad for america and bad for the GOP.



No he shouldn't have because the pitch came from people in his own party. He gets the pass, who should have seen it coming was Marco Rubio who had the benefit of history to look back upon.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Show me where the constitution says that.


Ok, show me where anything you have said is contained in the Constitution. I'll wait patiently.

Part of what has been determined on this matter:

"U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. The textual argument that the criminal prosecution of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by the Senate arises from the reference to the "Party convicted" being liable for "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton's discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos. 65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of impeachment. OLC Memo at 2.4"

www.justice.gov...



None of that has been "determined" as you put it, It's just some arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar. Fact is there is nothing in the constitution that says a president must first be removed from office before he can be criminally indicted. In fact it can be argued that since the constitution does not say who has authority to indict a sitting president, the authority thus rests with the states as per the tenth amendment.


This was far from "an arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar". The memorandum in that link was written by the Assistant Attorney General, in the Office of Legal Counsel, not by some second-year law student.

Second, in theory, sure ... a grand jury could very well indict a President. There is nothing in the Constitution (or anywhere else) that explicitly forbids that. Where to go from the point of indictment is another matter entirely, and this is the point where you get into matters that ARE touched on by the Constitution, which you can understand by reading the memorandum that I linked to.

The only person that has the ability to arrest the President is the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and that is only upon a violation of Senate rules. You can read it here, if you wish: www.senate.gov...

You cannot remove the President from office, for any reason, without the process of impeachment being involved. There is no other method to have it done, unless you want to get into the 25th Amendment. Once the President is impeached, he can be removed from office. Once he is removed from office, you can have him arrested - he no longer has the power to simply say no.
edit on 26-7-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
[

This was far from "an arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar". The memorandum in that link was written by the Assistant Attorney General, in the Office of Legal Counsel, not by some second-year law student.


Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by flyswatter
[

This was far from "an arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar". The memorandum in that link was written by the Assistant Attorney General, in the Office of Legal Counsel, not by some second-year law student.


Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.


The only "opinion" that is binding is that of the Supreme Court, as their "opinions" are the rulings of the highest court of this land.

The Assistant AG's "opinion" is not what mattered in this memorandum, and you would know this had you taken the time to read. What mattered is what he referenced in the opinion, which is everything from founding father intent to articles of the Constitution to the Justice Department's rulings.

Now, if you want to argue the points that he made in the memorandum, or you would like to make an attempt to prove me wrong in what I have made very clear about the inability to arrest a sitting President, go right ahead. I'm all ears, but you're going to have a hard time finding anyone with a legal background that will agree with you. Even some of the most hardcore Obama haters realize the fact that they'd have to get him impeached before trying to arrest him for anything.

The Constitution states that the President shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment. You see, even the shortsighted can see the fact that a President is capable of simply pardoning himself if he still has the power. There are arguments about this that you can research, but there is nothing that explicitly prevents it at this time. This is just one of the reasons that arresting a sitting President would be a worthless effort. Let me type it slowly this time ... you ... have ... to ... get ... the ... President ... out ... of ... office ... first.

So go ahead and convince the House of Representatives to write up the articles of impeachment. Then convince the House to pass the vote to send those articles to the Senate. Then convince the Senate to pass the vote to impeach. Then you need to convince a grand jury to indict the now former President. Good luck!

I'm not saying this is the best way it could be, or that it is the way that it SHOULD be, but this is the way that it IS, like it or not. Dont like the system? Work to change it.
edit on 26-7-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45


Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.


The only "opinion" that is binding is that of the Supreme Court, as their "opinions" are the rulings of the highest court of this land.



Where does the constitution say the US Supreme Court is above the State Supreme Courts? And where does the constitution say the opinions of Courts are above those of legislatures.? I'm sick of being told 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue.? THINK



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45


Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.


The only "opinion" that is binding is that of the Supreme Court, as their "opinions" are the rulings of the highest court of this land.



Where does the constitution say the US Supreme Court is above the State Supreme Courts? And where does the constitution say the opinions of Courts are above those of legislatures.? I'm sick of being told 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue.? THINK


Would you like me to quote exactly where it says that the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court? Or the Constitutional responsibilites given the Supreme Court?

Most here are aware, you are not. Please educate yourself by reading Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

I'd be thankful, if I were you. If you went solely by the letter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to exercise a hell of a lot more poewr than it does.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join