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.
All players under oath but without public witness.
The weakest members of society need to take oaths, because otherwise, no one would take them seriously.
Taking an oath in the darkness of other oathers without the presence of non-oathers subverts the objective of oath taking.
If a person takes an oath and no one hears it or sees it, was an oath really taken or given?
The public just can't be trusted these days.
"The fact is that even a deviation by even one single word during the ceremony (as admitted by Chief Justice Roberts in 2009) could signify an unlawful and unconstitutional swear-in as we saw four years ago at the public ceremony. Shortly after another “private” ceremony was held which caused quite a controversy at the time. Some speculate that the administration was hiding something as an executive order was signed by President Obama shortly after hiding all his records and possibly CIA activity."
you've made a specific claim that there is an "exception" to the constitutional succession to the presidency. please cite a specific case or document that supports your claim.
Yawn, OK. Start with these:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001
Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286, 290
Cone v. Harris (Okl. 1924), 230 P. 721, 723. Windsor v.
McVeigh (1876), 93 US 276, 23 Led 914, 918
Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254
U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)
HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. v. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)
People v. Zajic,
88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980)
Trans Aero Inc. v. LaFuerga Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457 (2nd Cir.
1994)
Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.
Last edited by Statutory Ape; 01-13-2013 at 10:15 PM..
ok, that's nice about fraudulent statements but we still have nothing discussing an exception to the vice president succeeding the president. i'd be curious to know if the VP could be simultaneously impeached with the prez but, outside of that, i can't find anything to support your claim ( or your "time-out" period claim ).
ok, that's nice about fraudulent statements but we still have nothing discussing an exception to the vice president succeeding the president. i'd be curious to know if the VP could be simultaneously impeached with the prez but, outside of that, i can't find anything to support your claim ( or your "time-out" period claim ).
A non-president or non-vice-president cannot be impeached.
The VP would simply be dismissed from duty, as a knowing or unknowing appendage to the fraud.
A fraud vacancy allows no Constitutional succession.
The position goes unfilled till the next election.
All players under oath but without public witness.
The weakest members of society need to take oaths, because otherwise, no one would take them seriously.
Taking an oath in the darkness of other oathers without the presence of non-oathers subverts the objective of oath taking.
If a person takes an oath and no one hears it or sees it, was an oath really taken or given?
The public just can't be trusted these days.
"The fact is that even a deviation by even one single word during the ceremony (as admitted by Chief Justice Roberts in 2009) could signify an unlawful and unconstitutional swear-in as we saw four years ago at the public ceremony. Shortly after another “private” ceremony was held which caused quite a controversy at the time. Some speculate that the administration was hiding something as an executive order was signed by President Obama shortly after hiding all his records and possibly CIA activity."
You realize they conduct the oath of office privately when the 20th falls on a Sunday and then hold a public inauguration on the Monday. This is not something Pres. Obama instituted just for himself, he is following the path of those before him.
Its racist to not support Obama. It's even more racist to question his place of birth. Even if more concrete evidence comes forward, its still racist and anybody who brings up the question should immediately be discredited as a crazy person.
However, its "realism" to believe Bush was somehow responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers or at least knew about 9/11 before the fact.
If you actually pay attention (at least here on the CD) the overlap between birthers and truthers is quite large. Many are also chemtrailers.
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.
