Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Is There a Case For Impeaching President Obama?
The Razor: If there is, I haven’t seen it.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and the impeachment of the president rises to this standard of evidence. I do not take impeachment lightly and continue to believe the GOP’s attempt at it in the 1990s was a terrific blunder. Sure, Clinton
was a weasel in his personal life and sure, he disrespected the Oval Office by turning it into his mini-porn studio, but his behavior hardly constituted a high crime.
I really dislike this president. I haven’t decided if he’s as bad as Jimmy Carter or worse, but the case grows for the latter. But for impeachment? I can recite a litany of scandals over the past six years, but none directly tie the president to them. If we had a press that was as antagonistic to this president as they were to Nixon 40 years ago, then perhaps that evidence would have been publicized. But at this point, it’s still buried. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, just that we don’t have it to move for impeachment.
Impeachment is really the nuclear option in politics. It devastates our electoral system and should only be used when it is absolutely necessary. I don’t like the way the party out of power throws the term around so loosely like a drunk in a bar waving a gun. When the Democrats begin talking about it and taking it seriously, then we’ll know we have what we need to move forward. But I don’t see it in the immediate future and there’s only 2 years left.
I only hope that IF the GOP wins that they investigate each scandal, especially those associated with the DoJ, Benghazi and the IRS. I want to know the complete truth.
GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Technically, maybe so – though one certainly hopes GOP will have tons of stuff to fix without going through the motions of a bitter divide for the nation. The misery merchants and tons of community agitators would raise pure heck.
Best to work through a GOP controlled House and Senate to limit, undo and repeal.
JoshuaPundit: Is there a case to be made for impeaching Barack Hussein Obama? I think there very well might be, but first we need to find out.
President Clinton, one of the most personally corrupt presidents in our history, saw to it that naming a Special Prosecutor in the future would be all but impossible. Mr. Bill’s last ‘gift’ to the country before he left office in 2000 was to eliminate the Office of the Independent Counsel totally by executive order and replace it with the very different Office of Special Counsel, controlled by the Attorney General as part of the Justice Department.
One would hope that with the GOP controlling congress and new leadership in the House, they would hire their own Independent Special Prosecutor to investigate a number of scandals and clear violations of law by this president. In fact, I think they’ll have to if they plan to show they can govern effectively in the run up to 2016.
After the elections, President Obama has been quite open that he plans a number of actions during the Lame Duck session aimed at antagonizing the incoming Congress, including amnesty for between 5 and 6 million illegal aliens by executive order, the naming of a new, radical attorney general (most likely Thomas Perez), as well as other nasty surprises. Moreover, based on his track record of working with Republicans in Congress, rest assured that he will play politics by vetoing anything constructive or even remotely bi-partisan once the new Congress is seated, counting on the need for a 2/3 majority to create gridlock that he can then blame on Republicans. So, it will be necessary to counter that with an investigation of the president’s conduct in areas like these:
The president’s illegal war in Libya, which violated the War Powers Act of 1975, specifically Section 4(a)(1), which requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 5(b) which requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes a longer period and Section 3, which requires that the “President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing” U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. President Obama did not do any of these things.
The apparent violation by the White House of federal laws prohibiting the offer of White House jobs to politicians seeking to primary an incumbent, namely 18 USC 600, 18 USC 211 and 18 USC 595. Joe Sestak, who primaried Arlen Spector for his Senate seat in 2010 after Spector switched parties, said openly that he was offered a position at the White House in exchange for withdrawing his candidacy, which is clearly illegal. Daryl Issa of the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to AG Eric Holder which was ignored and in the flurry of other business and other scandals there was no real followup.
Pharmagate, in which President Obama reportedly made a deal with the huge pharmaceutical companies to stop ObamaCare from bargaining with them to get lower volume prices on drugs for the American people, import drugs from Canada, to pursue Medicare rebates and to stop any shifting of certain drugs to different Medicare plans, which would save Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements. The quid pro quo was a cut by Big Pharma limited to $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years, plus $150 million from the pharmaceutical companies to be spent on advertising for Obamacare. Aside from this being what amounts to an illegal campaign contribution, the president is not allowed to make these kinds of deals without the approval of Congress. And no one has ever tracked what became of the money.
President Obama’s possibly illegal use of executive privilege. Under existing laws, communications and documents placed under executive privilege by a president must include a catalog that references the exact name of the document in question and details why it is being put under executive privilege. It’s known that President Obama shielded hundreds of documents relating to the Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme under a blanket order without a catalog.
President Obama’s illegal arming of Syrian rebels without Congressional approval. This is the same sort of thing President Reagan was pilloried for in Iran-Contra.
This president and his attorney general’s refusal to defend or enforce U.S. laws on immigration, the Defense of Marriage Act or prosecuting individuals guilty of material aid to terrorism. And his use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, as in the case of the Dreamers.
There’s lots more, but this will give you an idea of the sort of things that need to be investigated and the truth brought to light.
If our Republic means anything, it means that no one is above the law, Thus far, President Obama has been protected by his media allies and by his race. If an investigation proves that the White House was involved in these sordid episodes (and in at least three of these items, there’s no doubt that he was) a duty is owed by Congress to the American people. If President Obama is not investigated and confronted on these issues, it will create a dismal cloud of cynicism in America that will do immense harm to the country.
As for the actual mechanics, if the case is made properly and the American people allowed to see the evidence for themselves, I doubt that enough Democrats in either house will be able to vote against impeachment without suffering political damage – in fact, given how popular Barack Obama is with his own party these days, some might even welcome the opportunity. Actually, if the case is made clearly enough, I would expect President Obama to resign before an actual trial, in an exchange for a pardon by Joe Biden.
The Glittering Eye: Technically, “high crimes and misdemeanors” means breaking the oath of office. The word “high” does not refer to the nature of the crimes, but to the high nature of the office. That’s from English common law. Practically it means whatever the House thinks it does.
I think there are plenty of grounds for the House to vote for impeachment, but no prospect whatever that 2/3s of the Senate would vote to impeach. Consequently, I think voting to impeach the president would be a strategic error, more likely to injure Republicans than the president or Democrats.
I think a more interesting question is whether Congress should hold one or more cabinet or other administration officers in contempt. That can be done (at least using parliamentary maneuverings) by simple majority. There are so many to choose from: Eric Holder, John Brennan, several former heads of the IRS, etc.
If the new Republican Congress is bound and determined to show their disapproval of the president, they should vote to censure him. Again with parliamentary maneuverings, it’s something that could be done with a simple majority. If they do, they should do it as early as possible to get it out of their systems and out of the headlines long before the 2016 campaign begins in earnest.
Quite to the contrary, I think a new Republican Congress should extend an olive branch to the president and do so publicly. If the president rebuffs their overtures, they will appear gracious and he churlish.
The Right Planet: Personally, I feel there is more of a case for the impeachment of Barack Obama than for any other U.S. president in history. Consider the IRS scandal: one of the articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon was his alleged misuse of the IRS against his political enemies. Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon claimed he “endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.” The keyword here is “endeavored;” he didn’t actually follow through with it.
Another abuse of power by Barack Obama worthy of impeachment is his handing of illegal immigration. One of the main responsibilities of the President of the United States is to enforce the laws Congress has written. Regardless of whether a president likes the laws or not, he is charged with enforcing them. Yet Obama ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws. Obama also allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to ignore the violation of US immigration laws in so-called sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Denver, Houston, Portland, etc.
Obama served as president of the UN Security Council and presided over its 6191st meeting on Thursday, 24 September, 2009, in gross violation of Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution — another impeachable offense.
One of the more egregious abuses by President Obama was his illegal war in Libya, which was a blatant violation of the War Powers Act. Obama never requested Congressional approval for the military action in Libya, but instead cited a United Nations security resolution as his legal justification for waging war. Despite how one may feel about George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, Bush did obtain the required Congressional resolution, yet many on the left called Bush’s action an “illegal war,” while the left remained noticeably silent on Obama’s actions in Libya.
I really don’t have space to cover all the scandals, such as the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation, the attack in Benghazi, spying on journalists, etc., etc. and numerous other reasons why Barack Obama should’ve been removed from office long ago. Perhaps impeachment is too good for Obama; I would prefer prosecution.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: There are numerous incidents during this Administration where many of us believe President Obama could and should be impeached. I would define “high crimes and misdemeanors” as an abuse of power by one who holds an office of high position.
The President’s oath of office binds the president throughout his tenure, and as such, any public statement he makes that is a lie can be considered perjury. His statements regarding the Affordable Health Care Act alone, in which he stated emphatically and repeatedly that everyone who liked their current doctor and health insurance would be able to keep them, was obviously a lie. The challenge is in proving in a court of law that he perjured himself when he made these statements.
The Constitution also states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” We see how President Obama has acted unilaterally in not enforcing the law on the rollout of Obamacare, waiving some rules and delaying others for reasons he deemed politically or personally beneficial. In this case alone there is enough in my opinion to impeach President Obama.
However, in today’s political climate, for anyone to consider impeaching President Obama, they must be certain that he can be convicted of the crime or crimes for which he is impeached. It is not enough that he be impeached; proceedings must result in his removal from office.
I believe if Benjamin Franklin were alive today he would agree that President Obama has rendered himself “obnoxious” and call for his impeachment.
The Independent Sentinel: I am not a lawyer and don’t know if Barack Obama’s behavior rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
He has constantly undermined the separation of powers, states’ rights and the Constitution using his pen and phone. He only follows the laws he wants to follow in violation of his oath. He has violated immigration law and his own healthcare act.
He misuses laws to suit his ideological pursuits.
He has lied frequently. He lied to the American people about keeping their doctors and healthcare plans.
He has fired top military leaders and probably targeted innocent Americans using his agencies.
Mr. Obama has alienated our friends and caved to our enemies.
He can probably claim incompetence.
Impeachment is a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. He has certainly done that.
A case might be made for impeachment based on his abuse of Obamacare.
But let’s face it, the Senate would never get the votes needed, so it’s better to not even go there. A lot of Republicans wouldn’t even vote to impeach him.
There isn’t anything he could do that would get the Senate to vote for impeachment, except if he murdered Michelle or something like that.
In any case, he needs to have his funds cut off.
Rhymes With Right: Let’s begin by accepting the premise that it there is no point in impeaching Obama if it it is unlikely to succeed in removing him. After all, the Democrats have reached the point where they put party before country and platform before Constitution. Getting 67 votes to remove Obama is therefore virtually inconceivable and renders the exercise pointless.
That said, I do believe that there are grounds for impeachment.
The most obvious grounds would be the same as part of what was found in the second article of impeachment passed against Richard Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee.
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
But there are other grounds.
Obstruction of justice charges might well be considered in light of his failure to order Eric Holder to produce subpoenaed documents.
Obama’s usurpation of congressional war-making powers in Libya also seem appropriate fodder for impeachment articles.
The President’s creation of paid positions unauthorized by and rejected by Congress might be considered as well, as might his abuse of the recess appointment power.
Multiple articles could be related to his failure to see to the faithful execution of the laws, both by ordering his subordinates to ignore statutory obligations and by issuing executive orders purporting to override and replace statutory law when he could not get legislation through Congress. Many of these would relate to ObamaCare and to immigration matters.
The most critical and compelling charges would grow from a single incident. At least three charges could grow out of the Benghazi fiasco. The first would involve his abandonment of his post during the Benghazi attack, so that he could get rested for a campaign fundraiser. The second would involve his scapegoating of the maker of the Muhammad video and misuse of the Justice Department to arrest and imprison him for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize Islam. The third would be treason, given that he and Secretary Clinton offered a groveling apology to our enemies for the exercise of First Amendment rights by Americans, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
But as I said, I believe that impeaching Obama would be fruitless. Instead the House and Senate (presuming a Republican takeover of the latter body) should offer a joint resolution censuring Barack Hussein Obama over these matters and noting that a clear majority of both the House and Senate believe that impeachment and removal are the appropriate course of action save for the partisan refusal of the Democrats to hold their own president to account. Such a move would be a weaker one than what is merited, but would still put every member of both Houses on the record as to Obama’s lawlessness.
Well, there you have it!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… >or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.
And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?
Impeachment Under Congressional Rules
“Article 2, Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The opening salvo is started in this way:
“Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, [ III Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives , §§ 2342, 2400, 2469 (1907)]
by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath,
[ III Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, §§ 2364, 2486, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515.]
or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee. [ 116 Cong. Rec. 11941-42 (April 15, 1970); 119 Cong. Rec. 74873 (Oct. 23, 1973). See also,
Brown, W., House Practice, A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House , § 6 (1996).].”
Quoting from source of:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf
The way the Congressional procedures look at it, if I understand this correctly, is that even if the person is a usurper and illegal to hold the position, impeachment proceedings to remove ANY felony law-breaking applies.
We need only to get one Representative to get on board and file regarding Obama’s illegality, and the most crushing of these charges will be on his usurpation of the Presidency, being NOT Constitutionally qualified to have ever held and NOT Constitutionally qualified to ever hold an office requiring a legal executive in order to validate and vindicate ANY Congressional Legislation, ALL of which is VOIDABLE because Obama himself is voidable by NOT being a Natural Born Citizen of the United States WITHOUT a United States Citizen Father (age 21 or above) nor having any court admissible identity documents because his birth docs are all frauds, and he has NOTHING to prove he was even born here, and has so stated that fact in his own 1995 auto-biography, even if Ayers ghost-penned it for him that fact still yet remains. No proof of an Obama birth in Hawaii or anywhere in his family in 1995, means the birth doc was fabricated and manufactured later, and Barack is forced back to the same points which nail him as fully removable from Office:
“The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim.”
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)
And just what is that threshold to prove a United States birth? Partisan blogsite proclamations or a newspaper that announces a fictitious address of parents that list such that somewhere on the planet, a baby is alleged to have been born to so and so on this or that date? The Supreme Court or its justices — but only when the right legal mechanisms such as Article III standing is met or Impeachment proceedings are passed and triggered, only when it is forced to require of itself what the Law is — demands a HIGHER threshold on this proof of birth identity while “judging” the issue, hence “only in court” will they be demanding proof he is or was ever a U.S. Citizen issue. It is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), something they are incapable of ever doing with regard to a United States soil birth, and with regard that any U.S. Citizen was ever Barack’s BIOLOGICAL mother.
Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/
@ 54 : “The mother’s relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother’s status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”
So Impeachment of Obama on his illegality to serve is legal, and has the legal threshold by which everything that he ever signed into Law or passed by executive order on his own is VOIDED OUT, and that opens up others like Nancy Pelosi (who signed his authorization to run) and John Brennan (whose security firm breached U.S. Department of State and stole Obama’s passports in March of 2008), and many others, up for criminal charges, and life imprisonment in supermax without possibility of parole.
It’s NOT Impeachment it’s High Treason multiple times over and just by Libya/Immigration alone. Impeachment is all part of their delay/ distract plan for martial laws. It’s ALL part of the Uber corrupt UN Agenda 21 plan by the Rockafellers and other Communosocialists that aren’t ” social” even one bit. “liberal” = Socialist and “Progressives” = Communists and they both kill,maim,rape,torture the very same. Left/ Right, they ALL blame Israel/Jews as their Europeon False Flags to hide their ” Imperialism” that’s just mass genocide. You bet the Church is our extreme RW that truly started it all until the Muslims learned it from them. They invented most of the ” Jewish” stereotypes that are still used today….
If not Impeachment, then what?
Who/What will stop Obama?
From https://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/10/obama-the-military-and-national-security
“The real question is, how do you change the disastrous Obama administration policies that affect our national security? Obviously, the ballot box is one way, but the one institution that has the power to send an unmistakable signal that will be heard throughout the country is the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is time for them to live up to their oath of office — “to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The Obama administration has clearly violated the Constitution and must be held accountable. Since we no longer can count on Congress, the Joint Chiefs as a corporate body should voice their objections to administration policies that are threatening America’s security and that of our allies. It’s time to take back America.”
Does anyone on the Watcher’s Council ever BOTHER to RESEARCH U.S. Constitutional Case Law? I mean really. Obama is impeachable not only on his acts of TREASON http://www.brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2014/08/obama-is-guilty-of-treason-brief-review.html, which are inclusive in 31 felony counts of U.S. Code violations that can be brought against Obama right now http://www.brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2014/10/former-black-operations-pilot-turns.html
but on his specifically NOT being a United States Natural Born Citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution…a prosecution of which, according to U.S. Case Law citation, would demand that we VOID OUT all Obama signed and Obama Administration enacted laws, and force a January 20, 2009 reset on the U.S. Government.
“No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President….”
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5
“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
Obama is technically under the Constitution of the United States a usurper in an on-going act of TREASON by occupying an office that is reserved for United States Natural Born Citizens, those who have U.S. Citizen FATHERS at the time of their birth and were themselves born on U.S. Soil. Compare John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59
Under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180 the entire time Obama spends in usurpation is voidable, because each and every law he has signed is voidable in and of itself since he is himself illegitimate and those laws are fruit of the poisonous tree, as it were:
“a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and “in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land, the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.”
Obama was born as a British subject through Obama senior, and it is quite possible, according to Michael Shrimpton regarding a major international Intelligence Agency who allegedly swabbed Obama’s DNA (allegedly off a glass he drank from) and told him that the “DNA match to Obama senior but NOT Ann Dunham”, is actually to an Indonesian woman, a direct relation of Mohammed Sabu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Subuh_Sumohadiwidjojo
who gave birth (they say) to Barack II, as even the Kenyan Government and the U.S. Government OFFICIALLY recognizes Barack II as being in Kogelo, Kenya.
In May of 2009, Barack Obama and the Government of the United States of America officially recognized Kogelo, Kenya, as the birth place of the putative President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama II. It was attended by U.S. Ambassador Michael Ranneberger. The official Kenyan Government memo, Compiled by: Agwanda, J.O., ASDD and Comissioned by: Machage, T. N . , SDD
states very clearly and absolutely unmistakably that: “This was to honour the birthplace of President Barack Obama and re-dedicate the tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the president’s late father.”
http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 25th March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 …2nd paragraph
[Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]: “…how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25
Then, going back to the original premise I started with, under Constitutional Law via Original Intent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Obama fails to qualify even as a 14th Amendment Citizen without a US Citizen Father and by having foreign dual or multi-national citizenship at birth (United Kingdom and Colonies, Kenya, and for all we know, Indonesia as well) :
The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866
The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a “subject to the jurisdiction” clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.
Part 4 (column 2), page 2890
Mr. Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring “that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside…This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:
Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893
Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, “that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof”… What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
…It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895
Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States…that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
“The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States,or the prohibition of power to the States,is upon those making the claim.”
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)
That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), – –
Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/
@ 54 : “The mother’s relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother’s status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”
– – as well as having a US Citizen father age 21 or above at the time of birth.
Obama has no legal documentation that can stand up to any legal scrutiny in any U.S. Court of Law. Further,
John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
It is clear that a “natural born citizen” in John Jay’s intent is someone WITHOUT dual or multiple nationalities, but has only one since birth: that of the US by both parents and geography, and NO OTHER.
In 1874, the US Supreme Court ruled that as it regards Common Law, that if we follow that model, not only did a US Citizen Father have to be present to make one a US Natural Born Citizen, but a US Citizen Mother also. And that formula of Common Law is also operative vice versa in the phrase: “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens “, that without a US Citizen Father, you could NOT be defined as a United States Natural Born Citizen, PERIOD!!!
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
(see also how Justia.com tried to bury this key reference case @ http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html )
On June 6, 1951, President Truman signed the 1951 British Treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom / Great Britain. This Treaty, ratified by the United States Senate, took effect on September 7, 1952. This Treaty authorizes the British Consulate to register the birth of British Subjects born in the United States of America, establishing a British jurisdiction over US Born Citizens of a British Citizen parent or parents. The British consulate of the jurisdiction of the United States where they were found, including the territory and later state of Hawaii, and were thus authorized to give British passports to those like Barack Hussein Obama II as a British subject and United Kingdom and Colonies Citizen at the petition of a British Citizen parent, like Barack Hussein Obama I’s request (Obama’s father).
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1507.html (See also 8 USC 1101 (a) (15) (F) (i) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ )
While Obama declares he was born in Hawaii http://www.scribd.com/doc/56732637/Obama-Declares-He-Was-Born-in-Hawaii
neither Obama, nor his lawyers, nor the US Attorneys have ever produced one shred of solid identifying evidence of the man’s identity into Court Evidence in any Court of Law. Not even once. They refuse to enter his Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth, whether long or short, because both are forgeries. Even though under 333 US 640, Bute v. Illinois (1948) @ 653 and 533 US 53, Nguyen v. INS (2001) @ 54,62 they are so required to produce into Court’s Evidence, submitting them as authentic under penalty of perjury to the Courts. IT NEVER HAPPENED because they are knowingly fraudulent documents.
Then there is Obama’s 1995 confession of legal identity facts as of then:
“You know, as soon as the Old Man died,
the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance.
Unlike my mum,
Ruth
has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.”
Dreams from My Father, p. 345 Barack Obama (confessing there is NO Birth Certificate of any kind for him in Hawaii as of 1995)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280073
Obama can therefore be required by Law to produce an authentic US Hospital Birth Certificate into Court Evidence, something he has NEVER done, nor have in lawyers remotely done in the one reference they made to pro-Obama blogs in Hollister v. Soetoro Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR.What is it that Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie offered the Court the one time he even referred to substantiation in Hollister v. Soetoro Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR? Legal FRAUD upon the Court.
“Fraud on the Court is conduct:
1) on the part of an officer of the Court;
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;
5) that deceives the Court.”
Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852
{{{Quote from Hollister v. Soetoro, Footnote 1: }}}1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson,935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). {{{Unquote}}}
Obama CANNOT and will NOT produce a valid Birth Certificate into evidence in a Court of Law because both released long and short copies ARE FORGERIES.
Obama also uses an identity theft Social Security Number of a now deceased person 042-68-4425 http://www.scribd.com/doc/47560424/Affidavit-Regarding-Obamas-Social-Security-Numbers-Susan-Daniels for someone born in 1890 AND ISSUED IN CONNECTICUT in 1977-1979 as if a Tax ID number for most all his adult life. It is time for Congress to empower a special prosecutor and move to Criminal Filings against him, beginning with a subpoena duces tecum of his alleged identity documents under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures 17(c) and IMPEACH the Usurper.
But even so, I say it is time to call Obama not only as baggage, but as the most incompetent act of ever conducted by the Government of the United States when it and both parties within, allowed a foreign usurper into an office he had NO Constitutional right to even run for, let alone occupy. It is time that the Watcher’s Council get a brain, do the research instead of IGNORING and being as if intentionally vacuate on the one sure-fire issue that can legally and peacefully unseat and un-do Obama, and join in the public outcry and demand that both major parties throw that Ebola plague importing socio-path politically over the side, come out on the side of the birthers, and make the chronic and consistent call to void out Obama’s entire time in Office while calling for a Special Prosecutor such as Larry Klayman to IMPEACH that lawless one usurping the Presidency of the United States NOW, rather than giving us some lying drivel that he is a President like any other, when the man is CRIMINAL, state sponsoring Islamic Terrorists, intentionally importing plagues, attempting to dismantle the Bill of Rights, guilty of many dozens of felonies, et cetera. Thank you.
I’m with you on this. How can you impeach a “President” who is not legitimately President? I believe Obama was born in Kenya as he and others have touted. I don’t believe Stanley Ann Dunham is his bio mother and Obama’s (If that is his name) life is Photoshopped. We may never know the truth about Barry, the “Republicans” lack the spine to uphold the rule of law and in the Democrat’s world there is no law.