Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Judge David O. Carter writes that removal of a sitting president for any reason is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
"Removal a sitting president" could also be within the province of Capitol Security, or the United States Marine Corp AFTER a court's determination of ineligibility.
Like you said before, judges, not Congress, know the law.
"Judge David O. Carter writes that removal of a sitting president for any reason is within the province of Congress, not the courts."
"Removal a sitting president" could also be within the province of Capitol Security, or the United States Marine Corp AFTER a court's determination of ineligibility.
Like you said before, judges, not Congress, know the law.
LOL!
Someone has been having fantasies, I see.
Either way, you might as well get over it. Despite whatever crackpot theories you can come up with (and in that regard, I give the birthers a solid A+. For what they lack in intelligence and civic knowledge, they make up for with creativity) the courts have ruled against you time and time and time and time and time again.
Either way, you might as well get over it. Despite whatever crackpot theories you can come up with (and in that regard, I give the birthers a solid A+. For what they lack in intelligence and civic knowledge, they make up for with creativity) the courts have ruled against you time and time and time and time and time again.
The courts have only ruled against me as much as they have ruled against you.
The courts have only ruled against me as much as they have ruled against you.
It's a constitutional issue affecting everyone.
Really? I voted for Obama twice, have been quite happy with him, and like the vast majority of Americans know that Barack Obama is a U.S citizen eligible for the office he has been elected to despite what nonsense the birthers seem to drudge up.
Oh, and here's another part from the "entirety" of LORD Coke's REPORT (showing AGAIN HOW WRONG YOU ARE), where we have a foreigner who is NOT "acting in armed aggression", but rather in treason, as a SUBJECT and his parentage is considered for his native-born child to be a natural born subject, ALL BECAUSE of the ligeance of the father AS A SUBJECT.
Finally, you address the part of Calvin's Case dealing with the Frenchman Sherley.
You admit that the child of a foreigner can be considered "natural born".
Barack Obama, Sr. was was a foreigner who was not acting in armed aggression and was in ligeance to the sovereignty of the United States government. By your own statement above, the son of Barack Obama, Sr. is natural born.
Michael, by your own interpretation of 17th century English common law, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States and is fully qualified to be elected to the Presidency of the United States.
And yet you continue to whine all over the web about how nobody pays attention to you or answers your questions the way you really, really, really want them answered... even as your idiotic ideas have been tested in court and lost more than a score times.
You are a veritable bundle of undealt with issues.
You must be very sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
