Appearing in court is "oppressive".

[henryclay]

Who in the United States is so important that they can have a message delivered to a judge that effectively tells the judge to rule in their favor, but they want to skip an appearance in court to make their case because doing so would create an unreasonable and oppressive burdon on them? And when did the states loose control of their own election process?

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”

www.wnd.com/2012/01/judge-rejects-obama-demand-to-quash-subpoena/

[Tennesseer]

Who does that 'uppity' president think he is, huh henryclay.

[billisonboard]

Jan 21, 2012 11:09:20 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Who in the United States is so important that they can have a message delivered to a judge that effectively tells the judge to rule in their favor, but they want to skip an appearance in court to make their case because doing so would create an unreasonable and oppressive burdon on them? ...

We all are. It is a right of every single American to be represented by counsel and have that counsel present motions to a court.

[humok]

He is afraid to go to the court and "prove" his eligibility. If he does not go and prove it then he should stay off the ballot and if he refuses to prove his eligibility then other states should follow suit. He is not above the constitutional requirements. Any and every state has the right to vet his qualifications if they have been done.

[billisonboard]

Jan 21, 2012 17:09:21 GMT -5 humok said:

He is afraid to go to the court and "prove" his eligibility. If he does not go and prove it then he should stay off the ballot and if he refuses to prove his eligibility then other states should follow suit. He is not above the constitutional requirements. Any and every state has the right to vet his qualifications if they have been done.

And every other candidate that wishes to be on the ballot should have to do exactly the same thing.

[henryclay]

Jan 21, 2012 12:02:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 21, 2012 11:09:20 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Who in the United States is so important that they can have a message delivered to a judge that effectively tells the judge to rule in their favor, but they want to skip an appearance in court to make their case because doing so would create an unreasonable and oppressive burdon on them? ...

We all are. It is a right of every single American to be represented by counsel and have that counsel present motions to a court.

Yer absolutely right, bills. Absolutely, slam dunk no room for maneuver nailed and case closed right.

But every judge also has the right to tell those "representatives" he doesn't want to read any messenger's hand carry notes, and that they are to carry a note back to their principal that, (if there is to be any hope of prevailing in the action before the court), he, she, it or they, (in the absence of a legal bar for doing so), are to present themselves to the court at an appointed time and place.

As I read the proceedings, this judge doesn't think there is a legal bar available to preclude the demand for a personal appearance. He doesn't rule it out, he just wants to either see it or have the defense chance having him rule on the case without them ever presenting a viable defense.

This is one worth watching. The minefields ahead are wide, and probably not even charted yet.

[cereb]

LOL! All the birthers are salivating...

[billisonboard]

Jan 21, 2012 20:52:47 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jan 21, 2012 17:14:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And every other candidate that wishes to be on the ballot should have to do exactly the same thing.

I don't think any would have a problem with it.

I agree. They would love to do that photo op.

EDIT: Remember, the only job that they have is running for President. Why would they care about giving up a day. They don't have anything better to do.

[Deleted]

I think the end of the article (below the image of his birth certificate) is far more interesting than the top.

[billisonboard]

Jan 21, 2012 21:05:18 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I think the end of the article (below the image of his birth certificate) is far more interesting than the top.

I would love to see a court overturn the American people's decision on Obama based on a technicality of the definition of "natural born citizen."

[djAdvocate]

Jan 21, 2012 20:51:12 GMT -5 cereb said:

LOL! All the birthers are salivating...

i doubt Newt is dumb enough to break bread with that crowd.

[diamonds]

Jan 21, 2012 11:15:20 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

He doesn't seem to have a problem interrupting his duties to take vacations.

Vacationer in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. Oh, I love it!!!

[djAdvocate]

Jan 21, 2012 11:32:57 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Yes, uppity!

this is precisely what many (most?) people feel, but are afraid to say.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 21, 2012 22:10:58 GMT -5 diamonds said:

Jan 21, 2012 11:15:20 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

He doesn't seem to have a problem interrupting his duties to take vacations.

Vacationer in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. Oh, I love it!!!

shall i pull out the Bush numbers?

trust me. Obama is a slacker in the vacation department.

[Don Perignon]

DJ, I note that even the most enlightening evidence rarely dissuades the delusional from cherishing their asinine memes. They really enjoy hating "Barack Hussein Obama", and will not allow anyone to interfere with their little hate-fest.
And even if you DID manage to divert them from that particular focus of their enmity, they'd just tranfer their despisal to some other target... immigrants (legal or illegal), academics, welfare recipients, gays... whatever.

[ungenteel]

I can't believe that there are still righties wallowing in this "birther" crap ... are you imbeciles cuckoo or what?

[henryclay]

Why are the lefties so defensive? What could possibly be more American than to proudly show your qualifications to be president of the greatest country ever known?

[billisonboard]

Jan 21, 2012 22:55:27 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Why are the lefties so defensive? What could possibly be more American than to proudly show your qualifications to be president of the greatest country ever known?

President Obama has done that. The question here is much different than that.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I used to appear in court ALL the time without the clients I was representing. This is hardly earth-shattering, or rare.

[billisonboard]

Jan 21, 2012 23:55:33 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

I used to appear in court ALL the time without the clients I was representing. This is hardly earth-shattering, or rare.

Setting the precedent of compelling the sitting POTUS to personally appear in this type of case is my major concern.

[henryclay]

Jan 21, 2012 23:55:33 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

I used to appear in court ALL the time without the clients I was representing. This is hardly earth-shattering, or rare.

Being represented by counsel without personally appearing is commonplace. No one has argued otherwise. Why then is it so seemingly convenient to repeatedly refer to that practice and entirely omit the court's prerogative to have the, (in this case), defendant personally appear?

bills wrote:

Setting the precedent of compelling the sitting POTUS to personally appear in this type of case is my major concern.

You are right and you are wrong. Although there have been attempts, (beginning with John Adams in 1800), no court has been successful in having a sitting president personally appear in a proceeding. But at the same time, no president has ever been successful in keeping documents from the review of any court except documents of vital national security.

Obama's claim that being required to attend is "oppressive" is hardly im-pressive to this particular judge. Never mind we are talking about the president of the United States, I would think he could find something more legally acceptable than to refer to appearing in a legal proceeding against him as being "oppressive".

In the prior cases the courts were deliberating the actions of the presidents while they were carrying out the duties of their office. That would seem to be a completely different thing than deliberating the very personal and constitutionally required qualifications to even be in that office.

Some say the question is settled. Others say it is not settled. This judge should be commended for trying to get beyond that point and remove the doubt.

As I wrote earlier, this will be one to watch, just to see the twists and turns the lawyers, (and it may pay to remember that everybody involved is a lawyer), can find as they try to outmaneuver each other.

www.answers.com/topic/presidents-and-subpoenas

[Virgil Showlion]

A bit of merit to both sides of the argument. There seems to be conflicting reports on how much vacation time Pres. Obama has taken thus far, but the best estimate I've seen is 61+17+6 = 84 days (first 36 months), while Pres. Bush took 180 days in his first 31 months (no data for first 36).

That being said, Pres. Bush was perennially criticized for his vacationing, which ultimately amounted to an absurd percentage of his presidency (around 32%). Comparing Pres. Obama to Bush on vacation time is a bit like comparing him to Charles Manson to establish his relatively good character.

Pres. Clinton had took 28 vacation days in his first 36 months, blowing both Bush and Obama out of the water. Granted, he may have had a few more "working" vacation days than were officially in the books...

[humok]

Post # 6...Yes Billison you are correct and according to the constitution all are suppose to prove these qualifications before being allowed to run for office but alas our govt officials think they are above the Constitution and laws.
post # 18...No ung we are not imbeciles but we do believe in the Constitution and the Laws that govern our Republic and with so much controversy about his Birth certificate being fake I think before he is allowed on any ballot he should have to prove his qualifications like he did not have to do the first time don't you? I have to prove my qualifications for every job I put in for why should he be any different especially since he is the head of the greatest country on earth.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 21, 2012 22:55:27 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Why are the lefties so defensive? What could possibly be more American than to proudly show your qualifications to be president of the greatest country ever known?

my family is more important to me than my country. sorry. but it is a fact.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 22, 2012 11:29:25 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

With the terrible condition our country is in, I have a big problem with our President taking ANY vacation. Why should the many who are without jobs be asked to sit and watch the leader of our country spending thousands vacationing in Hawaii, this while they can't even afford food or rent.

i want my president rested and functioning, lone. if he burns himself out, he is no good to anyone. but i suppose that some people would rather like that.

i know that when Bush was in office, i didn't resent his time off. in fact, i celebrated it. it was his time IN office that bothered me.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 22, 2012 11:29:25 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

With the terrible condition our country is in, I have a big problem with our President taking ANY vacation. Why should the many who are without jobs be asked to sit and watch the leader of our country spending thousands vacationing in Hawaii, this while they can't even afford food or rent.

Any problem with a president taking multiple vacations while our troops were dying in a war started by a president with fault intelligence? How abour a war started with good intelligence?

[billisonboard]

Jan 22, 2012 11:33:19 GMT -5 humok said:

Post # 6...Yes Billison you are correct and according to the constitution all are suppose to prove these qualifications before being allowed to run for office ....
....

Show me that in the Constitution. Here is a link to help you out:

www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

_{(here is a little hint: it ain't in there.)}

[Virgil Showlion]

With the terrible condition our country is in, I have a big problem with our President taking ANY vacation. Why should the many who are without jobs be asked to sit and watch the leader of our country spending thousands vacationing in Hawaii, this while they can't even afford food or rent.

84 days over 3 years is 28 days per year.

Frankly, the US is in the doo because it's spending trillions more per year than it's bringing in in revenue, the trade deficit is worsening, GDP is stagnating, unemployment is rising, and legislators have all but proven they cannot address deficit reduction, entitlement reform, regulation of financial markets, or the perpetually worsening housing crisis.

One man shaking hands, running fundraisers, reading off of teleprompters for an extra 4 weeks a year isn't going to change that.

If the figure of $10MM of public monies spent on Pres. Obama's vacations in 2010 is accurate, he's doing precisely what I'd expect a president to do: enjoy the good life while there's still a "good life" to be enjoyed.

[diamonds]

Jan 22, 2012 11:33:19 GMT -5 humok said:

Post # 6...Yes Billison you are correct and according to the constitution all are suppose to prove these qualifications before being allowed to run for office but alas our govt officials think they are above the Constitution and laws.
post # 18...No ung we are not imbeciles but we do believe in the Constitution and the Laws that govern our Republic and with so much controversy about his Birth certificate being fake I think before he is allowed on any ballot he should have to prove his qualifications like he did not have to do the first time don't you? I have to prove my qualifications for every job I put in for why should he be any different especially since he is the head of the greatest country on earth.

Exactly!!! I believe there is so much secrecy regarding this President. If they want Romney to release his tax records from the last three years. then Obama should release his college records and grades. I'm not really a birther, but I compared my Birth Certificate to his and mine was twice as long and detailed as much information was displayed regarding my parents. John McCain readily submitted his without all of the hesitations of this man.

[Don Perignon]

Message deleted by mmhmm. Let's keep the conversation to the subject, not to the posters. I'm getting rather tired of leaving this warning.