America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by jpotts. 24 replies replies.
What Would Happen?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
dpnewell Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Apr 7 2011, 9:43 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
First, let me say that I am NOT a birther. I really think that if Obama wasn't born in the US, Hillary would have outed him during the primary. I do think he's hiding something, but not that.

Now we hear that Trump is running his own investigation in Hawaii, and claims that he's uncovering some very interesting stuff. Probably just Trump grandstanding, but what if he does find something? What if Obama isn't really a US Citizen?

Does the SCOTUS declare his presidency illegal, and God forbid, Biden takes over? Anyone know?
gimbel Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Apr 7 2011, 9:46 PM EST
Joined: 02-04-2010
Posts: 11,148
It will be interesting to watch if nothing else. Could it really get any worse if he does take over?
borndead1 Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Apr 7 2011, 10:00 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
Wouldn't matter. Different puppet with the same hands pulling the strings.
rfenst Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 3:11 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
dpnewell wrote:
What if Obama isn't really a US Citizen?

Does the SCOTUS declare his presidency illegal, and God forbid, Biden takes over? Anyone know?



Take a look at the Constitution and then the Presidential Succession Acts and their histories. There is no precedent to rely upon or follow. I believe that impeachment by the House would be followed by conviction by the Senate. However, I don't think ineligibility, in and of itself, is an impeachable offense (but I may be wrong).l Certainly, it is an indisputable removable circumstance

Also, I think that any dispute as to procedure and applicability would first go to a House committee for determination. If the committee couldn't determine how to proceed, then and only then would the SCOTUS possibly get involved (except for the role of the CJ of the SCOTUS presiding over the Senate vote whether to convict).

The problem I see here is that if ineligibility is not an offense per se, why would the House have the power to impeach (bring formal charges)? Impeachment to me in this scenario implies a crime. But, guilt for a crime requires wrongful conduct and knowledge of wrong doing at the time of the misconduct (scienter).

Heaven forbid Obama not being eligible. However, should this be conclusively proven, I would truly expect him to choose to promptly resign. More interesting to me would be how to handle Obama not being eligible under circumstances- where he truly did not know he was ineligible at any time- until his intelligibility were discovered.





(As to Trump: What a grand-standing prick. If he was to be able to prove ineligibility, then he would deserve positive attention for doing so. However, until he has such proof, I believe his publicity statements to be irresponsible and unnecessarily divisive. He needs to STFU until he has more than mere speculation and hyperbolic rhetoric to spew. And, as to anyone who thinks Trump is presidential material- you are dreaming, IMNSHO.)
rfenst Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 3:16 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
As long as we are broaching the subject, why does it matter to anyone anymore that the President need be a natural citizen?
wheelrite Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 6:22 AM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
As long as we are broaching the subject, why does it matter to anyone anymore that the President need be a natural citizen?


Because one's allegiance's can not be in question.

sorta like La Raza...
calavera Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 6:37 AM EST
Joined: 01-26-2002
Posts: 1,868
Because that is the way the founding fathers set it up. Because that is how it works in America. I would not want someone from some other country, say Kenya, making decisions that affect the direction my country is heading. Especially when the goal of half the country is to divide up what the other half has and redistribute it.




J
Lumpa Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 7:37 AM EST
Joined: 03-04-2009
Posts: 377
Counselor:
While in your stated opinion, simply being President while ineligible may not be an impeacable offense, does utilizing the war powers act (yes I know that we've reached the point where that act is pretty much moot, and it may not technically have been applied in the case of Libya, even though it should have) to control the military as in Libya, while ineligible, cross a legal line?

I know it would be crossing a moral line, but would that technical loophole preventing impeachment be closed?

And, realistically, such a loophole would be overcome - they would simply find different "official" grounds for impeachment, and vote on that, excercizing congreessional equivalent of jury nulification.

That may not pass confirmation, but I could see it happening in the house.

But this ia all just for discussion purposes anyways, nothing of substance is gonna happen on this.
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 8:02 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
calavera wrote:
Because that is the way the founding fathers set it up.


No offense, but not philisophically good enough to me.
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 8:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
wheelrite wrote:
Because one's allegiance's can not be in question.



What someone's allegience can't be swayed simply because they were born a U.S. citizen?
rfenst Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 8:19 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
Lumpa wrote:
Counselor:
While in your stated opinion, simply being President while ineligible may not be an impeacable offense, does utilizing the war powers act (yes I know that we've reached the point where that act is pretty much moot, and it may not technically have been applied in the case of Libya, even though it should have) to control the military as in Libya, while ineligible, cross a legal line?

I know it would be crossing a moral line, but would that technical loophole preventing impeachment be closed?

And, realistically, such a loophole would be overcome - they would simply find different "official" grounds for impeachment, and vote on that, excercizing congreessional equivalent of jury nulification.

That may not pass confirmation, but I could see it happening in the house.

But this ia all just for discussion purposes anyways, nothing of substance is gonna happen on this.


No. Nothing will happen, even if it was a crossing of the line. My personal opinion is that the "line" needs to have "safe harbor" to allow immediate action, when necessary.

I don't like the "Libya thing" either, at least to the very extent we seemed to be doing it alone .

Yesterday, i read that a Pentagon spokesperson said U.S. troops may be ultimately be required on the ground in Libya. I almost puked.

For whatever it is worth, I would hate to see politics/"jury nullification" occur when considering impeachment of anyone. But, that is just my own little pipe dream.




(BTW, just because I am a lawyer does not necessarily mean I think I definitely know more about any of this stuff than anyone else here may. It might help me to understand or interprett some things differently, but that is about all when it comes to this type of area of the law. Beleive it or not, we didn't cover it at all in any of my core iclasses in law school- not even in Con. Law...)

GTG t work...
bloody spaniard Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 8:19 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Trump is probably correct in saying that Obama most likely HAS a birth certificate with something embarrassing on it such as his religion of ISLAM. We will never know, much as we never got a peek at Slick's medical records which may have contained drug abuse and/or std's or Dubya's National Guard file which may have been partly fabricated and/or riddled w/absences.

If Trump runs, which is 50/50 at this point, I will awaken from my decade long apathy & vote for him.
daveincincy Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
bloody spaniard wrote:
Trump is probably correct in saying that Obama most likely HAS a birth certificate with something embarrassing on it such as his religion of ISLAM. We will never know, much as we never got a peek at Slick's medical records which may have contained drug abuse and/or std's or Dubya's National Guard file which may have been partly fabricated and/or riddled w/absences.

If Trump runs, which is 50/50 at this point, I will awaken from my decade long apathy & vote for him.



I wonder if there is a "religion" jotted down on my birth certificate. Think If there is, it probably says "Catholic," but that would be wrong at this point. I've bounced around from different "religions" as I got older. As a kid we are pretty much whatever our parents are. Therefore, his parents (dad) had "Islam" put on his birth certificate. Given the negative stereotype of Islam (well deserved?), I could see Obama being concerned about it. However, I doubt he considers himself "Islam" anymore...atleast he certainly doesn't appear to be a practicing Islam/Muslim. Plus, he had been going to Rev. Wright's church for years which isn't Muslim...I don't think...I'm not really sure what they are...racist, but that's not a "religion"....but I'm pretty sure the church is not Muslim. But that is most people today...claim to be this religion or that, but they don't really "practice" it or even hardly go to church. So why bother giving yourself a label? I guess for Obama it's a catch-22. Say your Islam/Muslim or say you're whatever religion Trinity Church (rev wright) is. Neither will go over well in the US, and certainly not for a President. Shame on you
Papachristou Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 9:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
i thought it was interesting the governor of hawaii said he was family friends with the obamas and remembered the birth. oh so wait, you remembered a birth 49 years ago from a late teens/early twenties girl who was sleeping with a kenyan (very very uncool at the time) i would be 100% confident that 49 years ago, families would want to keep the news that their daughter was having an illegitimate baby by a kenyan very very hush hush.
bloody spaniard Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 9:44 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
^ the governor or whoever said that is obviously a liar, Papa, and yes, perhaps in today's society a multiracial child is "cool" but certainly not back then. Strange to think that the "traditional" grandparents would announce/advertise Obama's birth in several newspapers.


Dave, public perception & it's manipulation is the name of the game.
Papachristou Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
has anyone seen Rev wrights youtube sermons? They are so filled with hate it's shocking. Ill post some links tonight if I get home in time.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 4:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
dpnewell

First, let me say that I am NOT a birther. I really think that if Obama wasn't born in the US, Hillary
would have outed him during the primary.

ONE OF THE BETTER POINTS I HAVE HEARD DEALING WITH THIS SUBJECT.


I do think he's hiding something, but not that.

WHAT GIVES YOU THAT IMPRESSION?

TRUMP LIKE, THE NEWT IS ON HIS THIRD MARRIAGE AND WITH ALL HIS MONEY HE
CAN'T FIND A DECENT HAIR PIECE.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 4:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
]GEORGE BUSH WAS MENTALLY DISTURBED AND NO ONE ON THE RIGHT GAVE A S H I T.

ROBERT, I ASSUME THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN HOW TO ENJOY A FEW BEERS WITH SOME
OF THE GOYS, AND NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU PONDER OVER..

DID YOU LISTENTO O'DONNEL AND/OR RACHAL MADDOW?
teedubbya Offline
#19 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 4:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
GEORGE BUSH WAS MENTALLY DISTURBED AND NO ONE ON THE RIGHT GAVE A S H I T.

ROBERT, I ASSUME THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN HOW TO ENJOY A FEW BEERS WITH SOME
OF THE GOYS, AND NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU PONDER OVER..

DID YOU LISTENTO O'DONNEL AND/OR RACHAL MADDOW



This is not fairl Robert is just as much of an idiot as the rest of us. Take it back.
jpotts Offline
#20 Posted: Fri, Apr 8 2011, 7:42 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Robert, Robert, Robert...



...Trump may be a granstanding pr*ck (and I'll personally agree with you on that), but he is pretty much only pointing out the obvious.

There is nothing on Idi Amin Jr.'s actual birth certificate that would in any way, shape, or form be considered "private" or "confidential." So, there is literally no reason to hide it from the public.

A re-printed certificate of live birth printed in 2007, no matter how much people want to spin it, is not the same as the original, or even an old copy of a birth certificate. I have mine. My wife has hers, and we have our kids' certified documents. One of thing was was told from when I was very young is how this was an essential document, and needed to be safegarded. We have multiple copies kept in secure locations. I'm just a frickin' programmer with an associates degree not some worldly, smarmy lawyer with an Ivy League degree. I'm able to produce mine in a matter of minutes or hours.

If the man is that incompetent that he can't keep track of his birth certificate, he should be tossed out of office.

Idi Amin Jr. is breeding this birther business through his own arrogence and/or idiocy. He is either hiding something, or holds the American people in wholesale contempt. Show the damn birth certificate, and this all goes away. End of story. There will always be some hangers-on after putting it on display, but like all pseudo-conspiracies the movement will lose steam and vanish into relative obscurity.
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted: Sat, Apr 9 2011, 7:27 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
]ROBERT, I ASSUME THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN HOW TO ENJOY A FEW BEERS WITH SOME OF THE GOYS, AND NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU PONDER OVER



Huh? I don't understand what you mean.
rfenst Offline
#22 Posted: Sat, Apr 9 2011, 7:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
jpotts wrote:
Show the damn birth certificate, and this all goes away. End of story.


Look, I don't know what is on his birth certificate and really don't care- unless it proves he was ineligible for the presidency. However, I think the reason all this hasn't gone away is that none of it hurts Obama's polls. Maybe allowing the birthers to carry on and to demand something he refuses to comply with benefits him in some political way. Lets be real. Does anyone think any of the birthers would vote for Obama if he presented a "clean" birth certificate?
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted: Sat, Apr 9 2011, 7:41 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
]DID YOU LISTENTO O'DONNEL AND/OR RACHAL MADDOW?



Not yet, but I haven't had much TV time lately. However, I will try to watch them this weekend. What times and channel(s) are they on?
jpotts Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 6:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
rfenst wrote:
Look, I don't know what is on his birth certificate and really don't care- unless it proves he was ineligible for the presidency. However, I think the reason all this hasn't gone away is that none of it hurts Obama's polls. Maybe allowing the birthers to carry on and to demand something he refuses to comply with benefits him in some political way. Lets be real. Does anyone think any of the birthers would vote for Obama if he presented a "clean" birth certificate?


The answer to the first question is probably "no."

However, don't fool yourself into thinking that this does not, in some way, hurt Idi Amin Jr. The last administration is a prime example of how ignoring someone screaming an outright lie hurts you in the end.

Did Bush lie about the "sixteen words" in his State of the Union speech? No. In fact, Congressional testimony says otherwise.

Was Bush responsible for Katrina? No. But you can't sit there and tell me that all of the hysteria in the aftermath didn't hurt him in the polls.

Hell, you had John Kerry all in a lather over his "swiftboating," and most of that information was true. The problem was - and every frickin' liberal idiot journalist is quick to point out - that he didn't counter the allegations quickly. Instead he let them fester. Nevermind the fact that a majority of the "lies" told about Kerry were actually true...

How quick some are to forget.

If Idi Amin Jr. is letting this thing fester to make himself look "good" in the polls, then he's dumber than I thought.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top