mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 23, 2012 13:23:36 GMT -5
The president is "on duty" 24/7/365. It's not like he's going to be able to ignore an urgent telephone call from Washington, or any other major developing situation. He's never, really, off duty. If he's lucky, he'll get a vacation without too many interruptions. Considering the pressures of the job, I certainly don't begrudge any of them the time they get to rejuvenate.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 23, 2012 13:45:08 GMT -5
I think Bush choked on that pretzel just to escape the pressure, even if he only got to black out for a few seconds. That's the problem with giving up drinking - where's your escape?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 23, 2012 14:11:55 GMT -5
Whether you like Obama or hate him, do you really want to set a precedent for a sitting president to be hauled into court every day of the week and twice on Sunday on nuisance lawsuits? Like the Judiciary and Legislature, the Executive branch is one of the co-equal parts of government. How do you get the people's business done? I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 23, 2012 15:07:57 GMT -5
He doesn't seem to have a problem interrupting his duties to take vacations. Or golf. Or campaign at Disney World.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jan 23, 2012 15:18:07 GMT -5
Whether you like Obama or hate him, do you really want to set a precedent for a sitting president to be hauled into court every day of the week and twice on Sunday on nuisance lawsuits? Like the Judiciary and Legislature, the Executive branch is one of the co-equal parts of government. How do you get the people's business done? I was thinking the same thing. At the same time, the Obama admin has no problems bringing states and counties to court, wasting time, money and resources.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 23, 2012 16:54:44 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing. At the same time, the Obama admin has no problems bringing states and counties to court, wasting time, money and resources. The Obama Administration is not demanding that the Governor or County Executive show up in court. The issue raised in the OP is the question of whether the sitting POTUS can be forced to personally appear in court. As has been mentioned numerous times here, the setting of this precedent is important to consider. IM(not so)HO, it would be a most dangerous precedent to set.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jan 23, 2012 22:24:44 GMT -5
"it would be a most dangerous precedent to set"
Agreed. However, there are those who are so blinded by their hatred they really aren't interested in the best interests of the country..
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jan 23, 2012 22:31:06 GMT -5
"it would be a most dangerous precedent to set" Agreed. However, there are those who are so blinded by their hatred they really aren't interested in the best interests of the country.. It couldn't be said any better, cereb, with the 2008 election and subsequent efforts to keep the lid on the truth is the poster child of proof.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 23, 2012 22:37:15 GMT -5
Executive Order 9981 must have been very hard for you to accept henryclay.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 23, 2012 22:46:30 GMT -5
The president is "on duty" 24/7/365. It's not like he's going to be able to ignore an urgent telephone call from Washington, or any other major developing situation. He's never, really, off duty. If he's lucky, he'll get a vacation without too many interruptions. Considering the pressures of the job, I certainly don't begrudge any of them the time they get to rejuvenate. i remember people saying the same thing about Bush, in his defense, as he posed for photo op's clearing brush (which admittedly, is better than holding pom poms and a bullhorn).
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 23, 2012 22:56:27 GMT -5
As do I, dj, and I didn't join in the condemnation then, either. Even if on "vacation", if the poor family gets a few minutes to themselves, they're darned lucky. Everyone needs stress relief, and I can't think of a more stressful job.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jan 23, 2012 23:07:46 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing. At the same time, the Obama admin has no problems bringing states and counties to court, wasting time, money and resources. Exactly!! The State of Arizona comes to mind. Hmmmmm...
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jan 23, 2012 23:40:03 GMT -5
Executive Order 9981 must have been very hard for you to accept henryclay. Underhanded comments with a clearly derogatory racial content don't play very well with most people, and for the record, without EO 9981 I might never have had the opportunity to know the Marine Corps' first black aviator and later 3 star General Frank Peterson, or call him a friend. Along with untold numbers of other good Marines who earned, each and every one of them, the respect for their dedication and willing spirit of mission ready service. And to go back a few years, if Abraham Lincoln had been successful in his efforts to ship the blacks back to Africa you'd have to find something else to use as a red herring.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Jan 23, 2012 23:57:54 GMT -5
He was married to Hillary....Would you rather take vactions or diddle interns?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jan 24, 2012 10:32:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jan 24, 2012 11:07:48 GMT -5
Message deleted by cme1201.
Due to nature of the post which is designed to simply bait posters and brings nothing into the discussion.
cme1201 - Moderator P&M
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 24, 2012 11:10:44 GMT -5
Mkitty, nobody who's posting here is wasting other posters' time. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. Enough with the snark. If you've got something to say, say it without the sarcasm and rude comments, please.
mmhmmm, P&M Moderator
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Jan 24, 2012 13:09:51 GMT -5
"The govt does not want to have it come out in public(in my opinion) that they put someone in the White House illegally if in fact his parents were not citizens and it is evident that they were not." His parents didn't have to be US citizens, but clearly his mother was a US citizen. So what. What part of HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII don't you people understand? YOU'RE missing the whole point here, if he was born to illegals, we don't give amnesty do we? Of course in his case, it should all be excused as he walks on water. That doesn't even make sense. And, even if as one poster "gleaned" from a video that his parents weren't legally married, if it is indeed the case that his parents were not married, children are given the surname of the mother (WHO WAS CLEARLY A CITIZEN) and the fact that he was born on U.S. soil (Hawaii). McCain was considered a citizen because his parents were citizens as he was not born on U.S. soil (Panama Canal Zone).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 24, 2012 14:50:26 GMT -5
... And, even if as one poster "gleaned" from a video that his parents weren't legally married, ... At least people appear to have clued into the fact that the whole "love child of Malcolm X" claim ruined the not eligible issue.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 24, 2012 15:13:48 GMT -5
When you are born on American soil, you are an American regardless of the citizenship status of your parents. That is why pregnant Cubans board rafts for Miami. But are you a "natural born citizen" in terms of meeting the requires of the US Constitution? It is questionable that you are according to the writings of 18th century English legal theorists? My personal belief (and it is a "belief") is that the American people had full access to the information of Obama's birth circumstance and passed judgement on his qualifications by voting him into office. I base this belief on the "consent of the governed" concept from the Declaration of Independence. I realize that the declaration has no legal force under the constitution. But I am comfortable giving it precedence over the legal theorizing of English writers from centuries past.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jan 24, 2012 17:02:22 GMT -5
When you are born on American soil, you are an American regardless of the citizenship status of your parents. That is why pregnant Cubans board rafts for Miami. But are you a "natural born citizen" in terms of meeting the requires of the US Constitution? It is questionable that you are according to the writings of 18th century English legal theorists? My personal belief (and it is a "belief") is that the American people had full access to the information of Obama's birth circumstance and passed judgement on his qualifications by voting him into office. I base this belief on the "consent of the governed" concept from the Declaration of Independence. I realize that the declaration has no legal force under the constitution. But I am comfortable giving it precedence over the legal theorizing of English writers from centuries past. It is a good argument, and one that has been made ad nauseum. The only problem with it is that the Constitution would fall the the whim of the "vote of unintended consequencies", and after only a few such nullifying and conflicting votes we would have a monkey's fist in the file cabinet. On the other hand, the experts are finding that the question has arisen before, and it has been addressed before, with each and every occasion confirming the words of the Constitution as written. Here are a few excerpts: "Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgersv. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
“The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. "When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.'” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198(1939)." Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
The 14th Amendment, and the natural-born citizen clause are very capable of co-existence. The Amendment is our general citizenship clause, while Article 2, Section 1, provides the specific requirement for Presidential eligibility. If the legislature had intended to repeal or modify the natural-born citizen clause with enactment of the 14th Amendment, then, according to Supreme Court precedents in Morton v. Mancari, et al.,the Amendment's intention to do so would have been clear and manifest, containing language stating that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural-born citizens. Instead, the Amendment simply states that they are citizens.
"As always, "`[w]here there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.' ... Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550 -551 (1974). . .
Any argument that a federal court is empowered to exceed the limitations [of astatute]. . . without plain evidence of congressional intent to supersede those sections ignores our long standing practice of construing statutes in pari materia. See United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 168 -169(1976); Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U.S. 1, 24(1976)." Crawford v. Gibbons, 482 U.S. 437, 445.
According to the Morton line of precedent, the rule requires this Court to give effect to both clauses. And this firm tenet of statutory construction was stated even more rigidly by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it."
According to Chief Justice Marshall, it's not even admissibleto allege that the 14thAmendment establishes Presidential eligibility, as such a construction would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative. The only possible exception is if the words of both clauses are not capable of co-existence, which is not the case here.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 24, 2012 17:10:50 GMT -5
... ... The 14th Amendment, and the natural-born citizen clause are very capable of co-existence. The Amendment is our general citizenship clause, while Article 2, Section 1, provides the specific requirement for Presidential eligibility. If the legislature had intended to repeal or modify the natural-born citizen clause with enactment of the 14th Amendment, then, according to Supreme Court precedents in Morton v. Mancari, et al.,the Amendment's intention to do so would have been clear and manifest, containing language stating that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural-born citizens. Instead, the Amendment simply states that they are citizens....
So how does the 14th Amendment effect Obama's eligibility in a way different than Bill Clinton's, G. W. Bush's, and/or potentially Romney or Gingrich?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 24, 2012 17:17:57 GMT -5
How does any of this address the practical impossibility of governing under a scenario where a president's personal appearance can be demanded by a court any time for any reason? It doesn't. What we have here is topic drift.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jan 26, 2012 23:24:42 GMT -5
Well then, let's get back on topic, and the intrigue is building.
To recap: In the face of multiple other challenges to Obama's bonafides having died inconspicuous deaths across the country, some Georgia citizens have succeeded in having a judge subpoena Obama and any documentation he possesses that will support his claim to be qualified to be on the ballot as a presidential candidate in Georgia this fall. Obama's attorneys attempted to have the subpoena suppressed but the judge refused to suppress it, and in fact made a point to Obama's attorneys that there were ramifications for non-compliance.
The attorneys then wrote the Georgia Secretary of State in Atlanta, who has overall supervisory authority over elections there, and asked that the entire case be withdrawn, to which the Secretary of State responded that should Obama fail to comply with the subpoena he "would do so at his own peril". The hearing was scheduled for today, January 26th and every seat in the courtroom was filled, , , , except those seats around the table where Obama was to sit with his attorneys. Neither Obama nor his attorneys attended the hearing.
We will see what we will see. But apparently we won't see any of it on TV or in print. Not until it gets beyond their control to keep it below the national radar.
This could all be over in a New York minute, but it would require Obama to recognize that the principles of leadership include the presentation of credentials whenever and wherever asked, and sometimes as often as asked. I wonder what is in the original copies of his papers that he doesn't want anyone to see. Whatever it is, for some reason Obama would rather continue to keep the country divided over it than do the traditional American thing and prove his case to the world.
The judge has asked that briefs be presented to him by February 5th, after which he will study the case and the briefs and make his decision concerning the petition to remove Obama from the Georgia ballot. It he rules to do that, Obama can either appeal the ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals, or he may prefer to campaign for the presidency and just skip the state of Georgia's participation in the election.
. . . . . . . . . or anything in between, , , , I guess.. . . . . .
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 27, 2012 0:40:57 GMT -5
Well then, let's get back on topic, and the intrigue is building. Whatever it is, for some reason Obama would rather continue to keep the country divided over it than do the traditional American thing and prove his case to the world. Divided huh? I guess that makes me a 99.9%er that has heard enough birther bs.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jan 27, 2012 6:36:23 GMT -5
Well then, let's get back on topic, and the intrigue is building. Whatever it is, for some reason Obama would rather continue to keep the country divided over it than do the traditional American thing and prove his case to the world. Divided huh? I guess that makes me a 99.9%er that has heard enough birther bs. Yeah, realllllyyyy divided. They're so divided that Obama's supporters are marching in the streets, protesting how he is being abused by the Constitution at this court house in Atlanta. What a shame that it was the Democrats that coined the phrase, "We're a nation of laws", that what they meant was that everybody else may think they meant laws laws, when what they really meant was Alinsky Rules. Hasn't anyone seen how the biggest gathering of people of one thought have taken over and are destroying Atlanta because a few diehard birthers just don't know when they've been beat by Chicago politics? , , , , , Yeah, , , right!!! Wrong. . . . The fact is; Obama supporters are so scared the truth will come out in Atlanta that not a single one of them can be found anywhere. The only visible support he has in Atlanta is in his taxpayer funded lawyers, and this time even they decided not to show up.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jan 27, 2012 19:54:18 GMT -5
"Wrong. . . . The fact is; Obama supporters are so scared the truth will come out in Atlanta that not a single one of them can be found anywhere. "
That's wicked funny.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 27, 2012 20:15:10 GMT -5
Wait, wait, wait... are you seriously telling me that the these birther weirdos are still around? Seriously? I thought we settled this crap three years ago.
Figures it'd be in the south though. Way to fight the stereotype of always being several years behind the rest of the country.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 27, 2012 20:46:36 GMT -5
Wait, wait, wait... are you seriously telling me that the these birther weirdos are still around? Seriously? I thought we settled this crap three years ago. Figures it'd be in the south though. Way to fight the stereotype of always being several years behind the rest of the country. Orly Taitz (California) is leading the charge.
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,940
|
Post by MN-Investor on Feb 3, 2012 17:41:58 GMT -5
First off, the original newspaper article was incorrect. The administrative judge posted signed blank subpoenas on a website as a convenience to lawyers presenting before him. It was understood that lawyers would fill out the subpoenas in a valid, legal way. Orly did not. She attempted to use the subpoena on people clearly outside of Georgia's jurisdiction. That doesn't work! Just because she put Obama's name on a subpoena did not make it a valid subpoena. She also tried to use a Georgia subpoena to get birth records from Hawaii. That went over like a lead balloon. She was spectacularly unsuccessful. And second of all, from the esteemed administrative Georgia judge Michael M. Malhili: "For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,
CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-3-5(b).
SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012." ( www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012) So Obama's lawyers didn't even have to show up and they still won. Or, to better state it, the birthers had the show to themselves AND THEY LOST!
|
|