Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)

reply to post by WhatTheory


It's based on article III of the US constitution. Read it! Really, READ IT. Tell me where in there it states that the SCOTUS can remove a sitting President.

Please. Ill be waiting.

Originally posted by whatukno
It's based on article III of the US constitution. Read it! Really, READ IT. Tell me where in there it states that the SCOTUS can remove a sitting President.

OMG! Are you dense, ignorant, have reading comprehension problems or just being purposefully disingenuous? Which is it?

How many times do I have to repeat myself.
You keep bringing up this lame point which is NOT in question.

We already know that the courts cannot remove a President. That is not what I am saying nor the point. Damn! do you read the posts or just mentally try and get a picture. Good grief!

However, the courts CAN hear cases regarding the Presidents eligibility if evidence comes into light which proves he does not meet the requirements. The courts would rule he is not eligible and then CONGRESS can procede with impeachment. Do you get it know?

reply to post by WhatTheory


No they can't

Read article III of the Constitution.

Originally posted by whatukno
No they can't

Yes they can.

Read article III of the Constitution.

Comprehend article III of the Constitution.

Your lame point of the courts not being able to remove the President via impeachment is NOT in question.

[edit on 7/18/2009 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The constitution was written in 1776. It was officially ratified and became effective March 4, 1789. After revisions.

Ding ding! that answer is INCORRECT! My 4th grade mentality and I humbly suggest you review your Constitutional history.

The Constitution was originally written in 1787, and not ratified, as you say, until 1789.

If your certain, but wrong about that, what else may you be certain, but wrong about?

Yes I am sure that at this point the only way to remove Obama is through Impeachment.

I also differ in this opinion, but I reckon time will tell. Or not. You'll note that I haven't suggested that the courts can REMOVE him from office, but neither are they altogether powerless.

I'll not offer any alternate strategies, as that would spoil the joy of discovery. Not my job to boot him, anyhow, should that be found necessary. It will, however, be interesting to see if he ever gains the intestinal fortitude to put the issue to rest.

Fact is, we've never run into quite this precise question before. Close, but no cookies.

Edit: Oh, all right, I just can't resist. Here's a hint for ONE POSSIBLE strategy, and I'll pay homage to your beloved impeachment: TRYING an impeachment is NOT the same as gathering evidence that an impeachment may be necessary. Under your model, Nixon would never have been impeached, because Congress certainly didn't do the original legwork to get the goods on him.

I personally feel that impeachment may not be necessary if it were determined that the administration of his oath, and hence his presence in the office, were found to be invalid in the first place. But of course that's a personal opinion, and you ARE familiar with personal opinions, after all.

Impeachment APPEARS to carry the presumption that an officeholder was legitimately there to begin with, but of course that question has never been addressed either. In any event, I tend to agree that it would take more than a mere court ruling to remove him from his entrenched position. However, it would have to start SOMEWHERE.

I know it's hard for you to understand. I wish there was a 4th grader translation of the constitution so that it would be easier for you to read. But unfortunately there isn't one.

You'll also note that your assessment of my mental faculties really has no bearing on reality, it's more in the nature of personal attack. I fancy myself to have a wee bit more knowledge of the subject than you give me credit for, but I'd hate to rain on your parade, and in any event you are entitled to your opinions. I'll just leave you to your prejudices and flights of fancy on that subject.

Minimize, Misdirect, and Marginalize. It seems to have become the American way of late.




[edit on 2009/7/18 by nenothtu]

Tell me then, why is it that the SCOTUS does not hear any case brought before it about Obama's eligibility?

EVER.

Each and every one gets thrown out due to Lack of Standing.

It's because not only do the American People not have legal standing to Impeach a sitting president.

(remember in this country we are innocent until proven guilty.)

That means at this point Obama is the President. He is presumed innocent of all charges. That means that the SCOTUS under Article III of the USC cannot hear any case for Impeachment. Only The House of Representatives can bring up articles of Impeachment and then the Senate can try the President.

Innocent until Proven guilty.

Those that are against Obama, have not brought forth anything that resembles evidence. Nothing anyway that can be used in an Impeachment case. And when they try and bring things up, they go to the wrong place.

It's the House of representatives they need to be pushing for removing Obama not the SCOTUS. the SCOTUS cannot remove Obama. The SCOTUS cannot even hand Obama a summons. No Legal Standing.

Originally posted by whatukno
That means that the SCOTUS under Article III of the USC cannot hear any case for Impeachment. Only The House of Representatives can bring up articles of Impeachment and then the Senate can try the President.

EXACTLY! Now you may be beginning to understand!

In Large letters: IT"S NOT YET A CASE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT!

Precisely! The case is not about impeachment until the HOUSE determines it is. NO one has claimed that SCOTUS tries impeachment! The role of SCOTUS is determination of Constitutional matters, not criminal proceedings!

Of course lower courts DO deal with criminal proceedings, every day. Not impeachment, however. Your entire argument hinges on the ONLY result being impeachment. Why would that occur if he is determined to have been eligible? That, sir, is a Presumption of Guilt, not Innocence.

In the matter at hand, impeachment is not the goal. Verification of initial eligibility is. Impeachment may or may not be the result if that verification were not forthcoming. Whether or not to impeach doesn't enter into the purview of SCOTUS, or indeed any court. As you rightly observe in the matter, SCOTUS has no say in that matter, one way or the other. They cannot rule to impeach, or NOT to impeach. Neither do they determine guilt or innocence.

Of course this case isn't before the SCOTUS, is it? Since it is not an appeal case before them, they haven't (yet) got the standing to rule in THIS case. And if it were, we both know that it would not be a matter of ruling on criminality by SCOTUS. That's not what they do.

Bringing SCOTUS into this issue at all at this point is nothing more than an obfuscation, a smoke screen. What are smoke screens used for again? Oh, right, to HIDE things.

Of course, if eligibility were found to be lacking by a lower court, it COULD conceivable be appealed to the SCOTUS. At that point, the SCOTUS could rule on the Constitutionality of any number of things stemming from the case, depending on what particular aspect of it were being appealed.

But of course they couldn't rule on the results of an impeachment. That, however, couldn't yet be in question, as the lower courts can't rule in that matter either.

SCOTUS would be ruling most likely on whether or not the fabled "long form" birth certificate were constitutionally valid as a verification of eligibility, not on impeachment proceedings.

My fourth-grade mentality recognizes that there is a wider body of law than just Constitutional issues.

It's not nice to limit yourself like that, but it DOES come in handy to deflect and misdirect an argument when one finds one's self in a place where factual evidence could become problematic. If the possibility of problematic evidence were not on the table, the argument would be quite unnecessary.

reply to post by nenothtu


The problem with these lawsuits, and the problem with this theory is that there IS no evidence to support it.

The side that does not believe Obama is eligible for the office of POTUS (even though it's way too late to do anything about it now that congress has confirmed him and the chief justice has sworn him in) keeps saying they want him to either show his long form birth certificate willingly or step down as the President.

It's preposterous to give such a mandate.

First off, no one in this conspiracy has proven that the long form birth certificate is the only valid acceptable form of identification to prove someone's natural born citizenship.

I ask for proof. But I get opinion. I ask for facts, I get blogs. I ask for evidence, and I get speculation.

When I do back these people into a corner about this issue, they just throw back to that tired old adage, "he's covering it up"

A poster recently gave me a plethora of documents that he stated that Obama is covering up and therefore is not eligible for the job. He claimed his list was evidence. Really? A list? Evidence?

The closest thing I have seen on this issue to be evidence is an affidavit. Of course we all know that people lie and sometimes are mistaken. (Well not you apparently) But people have been known to falsify an affidavit to suit their own purposes.

So, I will ask again.

Please provide me with evidence that proves that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible for the job of POTUS. Please provide me with any laws that the POTUS has broken in not releasing every shred of information about himself. Please prove to me that Obama is not eligible for the job which he was elected, confirmed, and sworn in for.

All I ask is for proof not opinion. I have my opinion. Convincing me to change my opinion by using your opinion is not going to happen.

As the accusers it is your job to present the case that Obama is not eligible for the job. It is not my job to prove to you that he is. To my satisfaction Obama has proven himself quite eligible for the office he holds.

Remember in this country it is Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The people that claim that Obama is not eligible for the office have not brought any sufficient evidence or rule of law that would further their cause.

I on the other hand have provided you with a way to further your rather silly sojourn into this conspiracy. A way to actually get something done about it and I am rebuffed and scoffed at.

The ones that look silly to me in my opinion are the ones that don't bring one case law, one civil law, or one constitutional edict that furthers their case.

Originally posted by whatukno
A poster recently gave me a plethora of documents that he stated that Obama is covering up and therefore is not eligible for the job. He claimed his list was evidence. Really? A list? Evidence?

This proves my point about you.

You either don't actually read posts, have reading comprehension problems or are intentionally being disingenuous. Which is it?

I never said that the list of documents is proof of anything nor that they have anything to do with his eligibility. Please try and focus.
The list only proves how decietful Obama is and how unwilling he is to show his true colors. The list only proves my point that he wants to keep his past hidden for whatever reason.

So stop putting words in my mouth in a lame attempt to make your flawed point. Thanks!

reply to post by whatukno


I think you have this a bit backwards.

No one has to PROVE he has no valid birth certificate.

He has to PROVE he does.

That's the whole crux of this matter, and since you seem to be demanding EVIDENCE, then why don't you also demand EVIDENCE and PROOF of his birth?

It is such a simple thing to produce an original birth certificate. It's so simple to let said birth certificate be examined.

Unless you don't have one.

Which means your election is invalid.

And every law signed by an invalid is likewise invalid.

And we get to hit "restart."

Originally posted by dooper
And we get to hit "restart."

So are you suggesting if Obama is ineligible that there should be a new election?

Ha ha, with 2 wars and a failing economy that is not plausible.

Unless you want a do over until a neocon is elected.

Originally posted by whatukno
Please provide me with evidence that proves that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible for the job of POTUS. Please provide me with any laws that the POTUS has broken in not releasing every shred of information about himself. Please prove to me that Obama is not eligible for the job which he was elected, confirmed, and sworn in for.

All I ask is for proof not opinion. I have my opinion. Convincing me to change my opinion by using your opinion is not going to happen.

As the accusers it is your job to present the case that Obama is not eligible for the job. It is not my job to prove to you that he is. To my satisfaction Obama has proven himself quite eligible for the office he holds.

Remember in this country it is Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The people that claim that Obama is not eligible for the office have not brought any sufficient evidence or rule of law that would further their cause.

What you say is correct, and everyone hates that you're a killjoy to the conspiracy theory. Bad news - shoot the messenger.

What would be required is something like a Kenyan birth document to disprove the allegations of non-US territorial birth. Kenya was under British control in 1961. One would expect there was proper documentation of birth for the privileged classes.

Speculatively it would also be relatively easy to remove paper only documents and records. It is within the realm of possibility this occurred.
I half expect a Kenyan birth certificate with Obama's name on it will appear online. And that there will be a roaring debate on it's authenticity.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
I half expect a Kenyan birth certificate with Obama's name on it will appear online. And that there will be a roaring debate on it's authenticity.

Ah, I see. So you are preparing to defend Obama even when proof proves otherwise. So basically nothing will change your opinion. Great, keep believing in your Messiah.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mmiichael
I half expect a Kenyan birth certificate with Obama's name on it will appear online. And that there will be a roaring debate on it's authenticity.

Ah, I see. So you are preparing to defend Obama even when proof proves otherwise. So basically nothing will change your opinion. Great, keep believing in your Messiah.

You radically overestimate your mind reading capability. I'm not American, I don't have any particular regard for Obama.

I made a comment on the way Internet conspiracies get fueled.

If someone comes up with proof that he was ineligible for being given his position, I will not be displeased by any means.

In thinking about all this, if Nigeria can create an industry offering
unclaimed funds in bank accounts of deceased foreigners, Kenya should be able to offer copies of Obama's true birth documents.

Business is business.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
You radically overestimate your mind reading capability.

I doubt it.
Besides, it's not mind reading, it's your own words.

I guess it sucks when logic slaps you in the face since it was your own words.

I'm not American

Then why am I wasting my time with you. Your opinion is irrelevant.

reply to post by mmiichael

I don't give a damm about a kenyan birth certificate. I just want to see an American birth certificate for him. If he doesn't have one he has some explaining to do.

This will likely be my last post in this matter. It has rather become like watching a dog chase it's own tail, round and round with no forward progress.

Originally posted by whatukno
The problem with these lawsuits, and the problem with this theory is that there IS no evidence to support it.

uncritical rejection of evidence out of hand should not be confused with a lack of evidence.

The side that does not believe Obama is eligible for the office of POTUS (even though it's way too late to do anything about it now that congress has confirmed him and the chief justice has sworn him in) keeps saying they want him to either show his long form birth certificate willingly or step down as the President.

It's preposterous to give such a mandate.

That would be preposterous only in a monarchy, never in a form of government where officers are alleged to serve at the will of the people. However, it would not be too difficult to persuade me that the US has become a monarchy, as you suggest. Several indicators ARE present.

First off, no one in this conspiracy has proven that the long form birth certificate is the only valid acceptable form of identification to prove someone's natural born citizenship.

No, they haven't, nor can they. I for one am not even making that argument. There are several forms of acceptable identification one would presume, but it is reasonable to request more solid evidence in the event that the evidence presented falls short. A forged Short Form would fall into the category of falling short, as well as call into question the motives behind it's production. The short form most bandied about the internet has been shown to be a forgery, to include the presentation by your opposition of the blank form used in its manufacture. Under such circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to demand more stringent evidence.

I ask for proof. But I get opinion. I ask for facts, I get blogs. I ask for evidence, and I get speculation.

"Proof" is a grossly overused term, as I'm sure you are aware. "Proof" is nothing more than a mathematical construct. For example, there is no "proof" in science, there are only observations that fit a theory, which is subject to being overturned in the event of more thorough observations requiring a fit to a different theory. Likewise, in jurisprudence there is no "proof", only a Finding of Fact at law, supported by the weight of evidence. Therefore a demand for "proof" can never be met. Obama cannot "prove" his birthplace. He can only provide evidence. Same as his opposition in this matter. Until it is heard in court, neither will ever become a Finding of Fact.

When I do back these people into a corner about this issue, they just throw back to that tired old adage, "he's covering it up"

Likewise, the Obama Support Group, when backed into a corner, fall back on demands for "proof" that they realize can never be give, concerning things that for the most part have no bearing on the issue at hand, and then proceed to personally attack the opposition in an attempt to marginalize and silence them. It's an attempt to misdirect and derail the argument, as is the allegation that "he's covering up" by their opposite numbers. Neither argument advances the search for justice, they are but smoke screens to hide the issues.

A poster recently gave me a plethora of documents that he stated that Obama is covering up and therefore is not eligible for the job. He claimed his list was evidence. Really? A list? Evidence?

I agree. a list of documents is not evidence of anything, except that the poster can compose a list. The actual documents themselves, presented in court, become evidence. That seems to be the crux of the matter.

The closest thing I have seen on this issue to be evidence is an affidavit. Of course we all know that people lie and sometimes are mistaken. (Well not you apparently) But people have been known to falsify an affidavit to suit their own purposes.

I thank you for the kind words, but they are not entirely accurate. While it is true that I avoid lying at all costs, I HAVE been known to be wrong, on several occasions. I'm not averse to admitting that, when it can be shown that I was wrong.

So, I will ask again.

Please provide me with evidence that proves that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible for the job of POTUS. Please provide me with any laws that the POTUS has broken in not releasing every shred of information about himself. Please prove to me that Obama is not eligible for the job which he was elected, confirmed, and sworn in for.

Neither you nor I, as individuals, have a right to demand evidence be presented to us personally. That would be akin to my demanding evidence that the driver's license you hold is based on valid documentation. Only a court can demand such evidence, and make a finding of fact based on it, or in it's absence.

Be that as it may, "evidence" of the sort you seek is already out there, in astonishing quantities. For me to present it, yet again, would be nothing more than taking the bait, and diving down the rabbit hole in a distraction from the issue at hand. I have seen sufficient "evidence" to convince me that the matter bears closer scrutiny, while you have rejected the same evidence out of hand. Re-presentation will do nothing to sway those opinions already formed.

All I ask is for proof not opinion. I have my opinion. Convincing me to change my opinion by using your opinion is not going to happen.

Granted. Likewise you will not sway my opinion with your opinion that the evidence is insufficient or non-existent. I've already addressed the matter of "proof".

As the accusers it is your job to present the case that Obama is not eligible for the job. It is not my job to prove to you that he is. To my satisfaction Obama has proven himself quite eligible for the office he holds.

Incorrect. As the accusers, it is "our" job to present evidence that Obama's burden of proof for eligibility has not been satisfied, and eligibility is therefore questionable. We don't determine job eligibility. That would be up to the courts. Any further actions for impeachment, if found necessary, would then be up to the House, as you rightly observe.

Remember in this country it is Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The people that claim that Obama is not eligible for the office have not brought any sufficient evidence or rule of law that would further their cause.

Neither evidence nor applicable law have been heard in court, so sufficiency is undetermined as yet. Guilt has not been determined either, so he remains innocent, but under a cloud of suspicion, as is the case with any suspect. "Suspicion" is by no means proof of guilt, but it IS cause for concern.

I on the other hand have provided you with a way to further your rather silly sojourn into this conspiracy. A way to actually get something done about it and I am rebuffed and scoffed at.

I'm not aware of the methodology you suggested, but am willing to entertain it should I be made aware. I hate that I missed it in all the back and forth.

Of course the phrase "silly sojourn" is nothing more than a label meant to marginalize, but unfortunately that has come to be expected in these discussions. It does nothing to advance your argument, and in fact can detract from it by misdirecting your own argument into the realm of personal attack, and by putting your opponent in a defensive mode, should he choose to be offended by it.

The ones that look silly to me in my opinion are the ones that don't bring one case law, one civil law, or one constitutional edict that furthers their case.

Such has been done to death already, but until it is heard in court, it's nothing more than net chatter and barroom discussion. The people don't bring the case, lawyers do. The people only bring the concern that initiates legal activity. They have done so, repeatedly, and so far it has fallen on deaf ears.

Do you suppose it can be stonewalled for the duration, or will the people ever get a high enough level of frustration at being ignored to take action themselves? That would be a most unfortunate outcome of all of this, in my opinion. Better to lay the issue to rest, one way or the other. The outcome of this will be in Mr Obama's hands, and rests squarely on his shoulders.

I leave the last word to you. I am done speaking.

reply to post by whatukno


How many times do I have to take you to school on this!?!?!?!?!?! This is NOT a criminal investigation... Do you UNDERSTAND this??? No one has to prove Obama guilty. He has not been arrested and charged with a crime. There are no Miranda Rights here. He hasn't been booked and no prosecutor will file charges and no grand jury convened. Somehow you can't seem to grasp such a basic concept. This is a CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL matter!

This is an ELIGIBILITY issue! It's the same as proving your age and citizenship to get a driver's license... the same as proving who you are and your citizenship when getting a marriage certificate... the same as proving your identity and age when registering for selctive service... the same as proving your identity and citizenship when you get a job and complete an I-9! Do you know what ALL of those statuatory requirements of prove all have in common!? They ALL require a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, with the exception of an I-9 which will except MULTIPLE other forms of LEGAL identification.

Why do you constantly fail to grasp this VERY simple concept? Is it because you are blinded by your partisanship and love for Barry? Is it because you just want so badly for it to just go away? Or could it be that you lack the faculties of logic and reason? Whatever it is I suggest you work at it!

Look... He has not produced a Birth Certificate that indiactes he was born in the US. He has produced a Certificate of Live Birth that only legally states that he was born - ANYWHERE! The certificate number has been blacked out to hide WHEN it was applied for so it in no way indicates ANYTHING - even if it is legitimate. He has sealed all of his Occidental college records - which would likely reveal that he was on scholarship as a FOREIGN student. He has suppressed the release of his passport data - which could potentially demonstrate that he held citizenship in another country. He has retained a small army of lawyers to continually combat any release of his long-form Birth Certificate.

The cases have been dismissed regarding a lack of standing which is beyond the pale as ANY and EVERY US taxpayer has standing when it comes to the Constitution. It is additionally curious that when one individual had INALIENABLE and UNASSAILABLE rights to challenge the issue, the military very quickly rescinded the order, thus invalidating the suit. It does NOT mean that the individual did not have standing NOR that the case had merit. It simply indicates that the case is no longer moot as the order has been rescinded. VERY curious indeed!

Why you cannot fathom the rational at work here is beyond me and dozens of others. You so remind me of Don Quixote on this one! Please just stop!

Originally posted by kozmo
This is a CIVIL and CONSTITUTIONAL matter!

This is an ELIGIBILITY issue! It's the same as proving your age and citizenship to get a driver's license... the same as proving who you are and your citizenship when getting a marriage certificate.

[...]

He has not produced a Birth Certificate that indiactes he was born in the US. He has produced a Certificate of Live Birth that only legally states that he was born - ANYWHERE! The certificate number has been blacked out to hide WHEN it was applied for so it in no way indicates ANYTHING - even if it is legitimate. He has sealed all of his Occidental college records - which would likely reveal that he was on scholarship as a FOREIGN student. He has suppressed the release of his passport data - which could potentially demonstrate that he held citizenship in another country. He has retained a small army of lawyers to continually combat any release of his long-form Birth Certificate.

The cases have been dismissed regarding a lack of standing which is beyond the pale as ANY and EVERY US taxpayer has standing when it comes to the Constitution. It is additionally curious that when one individual had INALIENABLE and UNASSAILABLE rights to challenge the issue, the military very quickly rescinded the order, thus invalidating the suit. It does NOT mean that the individual did not have standing NOR that the case had merit. It simply indicates that the case is no longer moot as the order has been rescinded. VERY curious indeed!

And you're right as well.

We all know courts and judges are called on to interpret laws and whether they are applicable in certain cases.

Certainly the Founders of the US and those drafting and amending the Constitution did not anticipate an unusual situation such as a sitting President possibly not actually being eligible due to withholding of information conclusively validating his birth place.

It seems apparent that those with the ability to demand further confirmation of Obama's eligibility for his office choose not to. They do have the right to call on certain interpretations of the laws regarding the matter.

Whose to override their decision. Who judges the judges is a moot point given the Supreme Court's inability to interfere.

Just my guess, new retroactive legislation would have to be passed to address the question of Obama's legitimacy. For a number of reasons I don't see this happening.

There are recognizably grey areas of law, and I think this irregular concern falls into one of them.

American lawmakers did not create legislation to deal with a situation like this.


Mike

reply to post by kozmo


Correct!! In a civil case the burden of proof is on the defendant not the plaintiff.