Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

if the "birthers" were right?

thett3
Posts: 14,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:59:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the "birthers" (people who thought Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii) were correct, what would've happened if he was already inaguareted? Do you think he wouldve been impeached?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
fergie1
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If there were solid proof that he was born outside of the US? Yes, of course he would be impeached. And thrown in prison for fraud.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 1:45:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:59:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
If the "birthers" (people who thought Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii) were correct, what would've happened if he was already inaguareted? Do you think he wouldve been impeached?

A.) his signatures and executive orders would be null and void
B.) he would be executed, since it would be a very serious and heinous crime.

The charges would be a combination of fraud, espionage, and Perjury.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 1:55:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Espionage?

Execution?

I doubt either of those.

Certainly, however, Biden would immediately be President. And pardon Obama, cause that's how Biden rolls.

I'm not sure his signatures would be recognized as null, the Supreme Court wouldn't view such a thing as practical, though it would have to declare Obamacare unconstitutional for much the same reason even if it had planned otherwise-- no other way to weather such a crisis without a few minor armed revolts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 5:58:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 1:45:18 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/15/2011 8:59:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
If the "birthers" (people who thought Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii) were correct, what would've happened if he was already inaguareted? Do you think he wouldve been impeached?

A.) his signatures and executive orders would be null and void
B.) he would be executed, since it would be a very serious and heinous crime.

The charges would be a combination of fraud, espionage, and Perjury.

lol, no.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 10:22:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Executed? lol no. He'd be impeached. However, there's no chance of this happening.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 8:32:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It would be covered up by the media and no one would know because the media would loose what little credibility it doesn't even have now.

Ya, as if the news outlets would report such a thing. They are so invested in Obama, they would have no other choice "but" to cover it up. They will just pull a Roswell thing and leave doubt for all eternity. Wait isn't that what they are already doing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 8:38:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 8:32:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
It would be covered up by the media and no one would know because the media would loose what little credibility it doesn't even have now.

Ya, as if the news outlets would report such a thing. They are so invested in Obama, they would have no other choice "but" to cover it up. They will just pull a Roswell thing and leave doubt for all eternity. Wait isn't that what they are already doing.

lolwut? It's a glorious day for Democrats when FOX covers up an Obama scandal.

You're way off base. Did the media cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Did the media cover up watergate? What do you know of the history of American media that leads you to make this absurd claim?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:24:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 8:32:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
It would be covered up by the media and no one would know because the media would loose what little credibility it doesn't even have now.

Ya, as if the news outlets would report such a thing. They are so invested in Obama, they would have no other choice "but" to cover it up. They will just pull a Roswell thing and leave doubt for all eternity. Wait isn't that what they are already doing.

Do you consider Fox news... a news outlet? Or are you one of those who believes that the media is controlled by the government?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:31:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the birthers were right then it would invalidate every action by Obama, the chaos and the humiliation would be horrendous. Even if this was true, even if it was confirmed the Supreme Court and the Republicans would hand wave it away, declaring Obama's election and Presidency to be retroactively legal.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:31:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 1:55:23 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Espionage?

Espionage is not only conducted by governments, and intentionally undermining the the highest public office of the united states for 4 years is Espionage.

Execution?

I doubt he would get a simple prison sentence

I doubt either of those.

Your wrong

Certainly, however, Biden would immediately be President. And pardon Obama, cause that's how Biden rolls.

Assuming he is VP at the time, and assuming he doesn't come under investigation himself, due to the Nature of the crime.

I'm not sure his signatures would be recognized as null, the Supreme Court wouldn't view such a thing as practical,

Who said the supreme court would decide?
And who said they can't be resigned?

His signatures would not be recognized as legal, because legally he was never president.

though it would have to declare Obamacare unconstitutional for much the same reason even if it had planned otherwise-- no other way to weather such a crisis without a few minor armed revolts.

By the way an impeachment is not a trial. It's a formal process, in which a public official is accused of a crime.

If convicted they lose office, and serve possible jail time, or even execution if serious enough.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 3:28:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 2:31:21 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/16/2011 1:55:23 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Espionage?

Espionage is not only conducted by governments, and intentionally undermining the the highest public office of the united states for 4 years is Espionage.
Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
Obama had such permission.

(Incidentally, Obama has no way of knowing where he was born. Kind of a memory issue there, might have a hard time even establishing the mens rea for criminal fraud come to think of it.)


Execution?

I doubt he would get a simple prison sentence
On what grounds?


I doubt either of those.

Your wrong
You're wrong about how to spell ^_^

Assuming he is VP at the time
If the birthers WERE right...

and assuming he doesn't come under investigation himself, due to the Nature of the crime.
Sounds incredibly doubtful that he'd have anything to do with any of it. If it were true, whoever was responsible would make sure the VP wasn't in on the conspiracy (but was a good ol' boy who would tolerate it), so they could secure a route to pardon.


I'm not sure his signatures would be recognized as null, the Supreme Court wouldn't view such a thing as practical,

Who said the supreme court would decide?
The Supreme Court is the penultimate arbiter of which presidential signatures are valid for what. (The final arbiter is whoever wins a revolt).

And who said they can't be resigned?
Wat


His signatures would not be recognized as legal, because legally he was never president.
It is the task of the court to say what the law is-- or more precisely, how the law will be regarded by the government.

By the way an impeachment is not a trial. It's a formal process, in which a public official is accused of a crime.
Not contradictory to anything I said. Impeachment leads to a trial before the Senate (of non-justiciable format, see Nixon v United States) after all. I'm not sure where you're going with this either way. It doesn't prevent a pardon, and it doesn't keep the question of the legality of the signature of a de facto president since deposed out of the courts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 2:21:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 3:28:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/17/2011 2:31:21 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/16/2011 1:55:23 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Espionage?

Espionage is not only conducted by governments, and intentionally undermining the the highest public office of the united states for 4 years is Espionage.
Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
Obama had such permission.

Espionage , Noun, The practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information

You don't think Obama knows any top secret political, or military imformation, that he wouldn't otherwise know?


(Incidentally, Obama has no way of knowing where he was born. Kind of a memory issue there, might have a hard time even establishing the mens rea for criminal fraud come to think of it.)


Well seeing as he produced 2 Birth certificates, both completely different from one another(one during the campeign, and 1 while in office); he would be comitting fraud for creating those documents.


Execution?

I doubt he would get a simple prison sentence
On what grounds?


I doubt either of those.

Your wrong
You're wrong about how to spell ^_^

Screw you, I was on my Iphone and typed s instead of e, and it autocorrected.


Assuming he is VP at the time
If the birthers WERE right...

We are talking about a hypothetical senario, where they are right.


and assuming he doesn't come under investigation himself, due to the Nature of the crime.
Sounds incredibly doubtful that he'd have anything to do with any of it. If it were true, whoever was responsible would make sure the VP wasn't in on the conspiracy (but was a good ol' boy who would tolerate it), so they could secure a route to pardon.


I'm not sure his signatures would be recognized as null, the Supreme Court wouldn't view such a thing as practical,

Who said the supreme court would decide?
The Supreme Court is the penultimate arbiter of which presidential signatures are valid for what. (The final arbiter is whoever wins a revolt).

The Supreme Court cannot rewrite the constitution, and legally, according to the constitution, his signatures would be null and void since he was never president.


And who said they can't be resigned?
Wat


reauthorized by the next president


His signatures would not be recognized as legal, because legally he was never president.
It is the task of the court to say what the law is-- or more precisely, how the law will be regarded by the government.

Wrong!!!

The Court enforces the law, they do not decide the law. That is the role of the legislature.

One could not commit a series of murders, than be released simply because the judge rules that the law allows for the murder of people under 18.

Also if one is arrested for giving a cop the rasberries. A Judge could not decide to send that person to jail, unless there is a law in place about disrespecting a cop.

He cannot be president, and his signatures would not be accepted as valid.


By the way an impeachment is not a trial. It's a formal process, in which a public official is accused of a crime.
Not contradictory to anything I said. Impeachment leads to a trial before the Senate (of non-justiciable format, see Nixon v United States) after all. I'm not sure where you're going with this either way. It doesn't prevent a pardon, and it doesn't keep the question of the legality of the signature of a de facto president since deposed out of the courts.

A.) I was refering to what someone else said
B.) Nixon was never convicted
C.) "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ........ and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 3:12:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 2:21:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/17/2011 3:28:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/17/2011 2:31:21 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/16/2011 1:55:23 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Espionage?

Espionage is not only conducted by governments, and intentionally undermining the the highest public office of the united states for 4 years is Espionage.
Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
Obama had such permission.

Espionage , Noun, The practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information

You don't think Obama knows any top secret political, or military imformation, that he wouldn't otherwise know?
Doesn't matter, he had permission to have the information. Unless he transferred it to other countries with faulty authorization-- you can't be prosecuted just because a security clearance did a cruddy job if you keep the information to yourself.

\
Well seeing as he produced 2 Birth certificates, both completely different from one another(one during the campeign, and 1 while in office); he would be comitting fraud for creating those documents.
That assumes he was their creator, highly doubtful.

Assuming he is VP at the time
If the birthers WERE right...

We are talking about a hypothetical senario, where they are right.
The key here is past tense. As in, the question asked if this had already come to pass and been revealed.

The Supreme Court cannot rewrite the constitution, and legally, according to the constitution, his signatures would be null and void since he was never president.
The Supreme Court can and does interpret the constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is animated by this thing called "Judicial restraint--" Never rule something unconstitutional when you can solve a problem by other means, especially if it will create chaos, says the Court. They'd just declare it nonjusticiable and thereby it would stand.



And who said they can't be resigned?
Wat


reauthorized by the next president
re-signed, to distinguish from resignation.
That's a lot of work to do and it creates legal chaos while he's doing it. Also-- that brings to mind another easy solution for the Court, found in the Constitution. You see, there's a time limit for presidential signatures, and except under limited conditions, the absence of a signature can still make law.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

Since clearly all those bills were signed and , albeit by a de facto rather than de jure President, Congress did not by their adjournment prevent their return. Hence, they are law with or without a Presidential signature.



His signatures would not be recognized as legal, because legally he was never president.
It is the task of the court to say what the law is-- or more precisely, how the law will be regarded by the government.

Wrong!!!
See Marbury v Madison.


The Court enforces the law, they do not decide the law.
The executive branch enforces the law. I can just imagine a bunch of old justices in robes trying to enforce the law. It's a comedic image.

That is the role of the legislature.
The role of the legislature is to make the law-- to say what the law will be. It cannot interpret the law-- say what the law is.


One could not commit a series of murders, than be released simply because the judge rules that the law allows for the murder of people under 18.
One certainly could, albeit an appellate judge would probably declare a mistake of law and demand a trial anyway, perhaps declaring a mistrial if one occurred.

By the way an impeachment is not a trial. It's a formal process, in which a public official is accused of a crime.
Not contradictory to anything I said. Impeachment leads to a trial before the Senate (of non-justiciable format, see Nixon v United States) after all. I'm not sure where you're going with this either way. It doesn't prevent a pardon, and it doesn't keep the question of the legality of the signature of a de facto president since deposed out of the courts.
B.) Nixon was never convicted
Nixon v United States, not United States v Nixon. Nixon v United States was a case about the impeachment, trial, and conviction of a judge named Walter Nixon.

C.) "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ........ and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Hmm, true enough. Doesn't prevent the angle Nixon the president took though-- resign when evidence gets out, faster than the speed of impeachment.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 11:07:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 3:12:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/17/2011 2:21:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/17/2011 3:28:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/17/2011 2:31:21 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/16/2011 1:55:23 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Espionage?

Espionage is not only conducted by governments, and intentionally undermining the the highest public office of the united states for 4 years is Espionage.
Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.
Obama had such permission.

Espionage , Noun, The practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information

You don't think Obama knows any top secret political, or military imformation, that he wouldn't otherwise know?
Doesn't matter, he had permission to have the information. Unless he transferred it to other countries with faulty authorization-- you can't be prosecuted just because a security clearance did a cruddy job if you keep the information to yourself.

\
Well seeing as he produced 2 Birth certificates, both completely different from one another(one during the campeign, and 1 while in office); he would be comitting fraud for creating those documents.
That assumes he was their creator, highly doubtful.

Yeah because that always works for people with fake ID's.


Assuming he is VP at the time
If the birthers WERE right...

We are talking about a hypothetical senario, where they are right.
The key here is past tense. As in, the question asked if this had already come to pass and been revealed.

The Supreme Court cannot rewrite the constitution, and legally, according to the constitution, his signatures would be null and void since he was never president.
The Supreme Court can and does interpret the constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is animated by this thing called "Judicial restraint--" Never rule something unconstitutional when you can solve a problem by other means, especially if it will create chaos, says the Court. They'd just declare it nonjusticiable and thereby it would stand.

You seem to be under the illusion that we have a Kritarchal Constitution. Israel has a Kritarchal Constitution, we have a nomocratic constitution; there's a major difference.




And who said they can't be resigned?
Wat


reauthorized by the next president
re-signed, to distinguish from resignation.
That's a lot of work to do and it creates legal chaos while he's doing it. Also-- that brings to mind another easy solution for the Court, found in the Constitution. You see, there's a time limit for presidential signatures, and except under limited conditions, the absence of a signature can still make law.

That's with legislation, not executive orders. All his executive orders would be nulled.


If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

Since clearly all those bills were signed and , albeit by a de facto rather than de jure President, Congress did not by their adjournment prevent their return. Hence, they are law with or without a Presidential signature.


Yes legislation would be de-facto law, but executive orders wouldn't. Also any international agreements would have to be either nulled, or reapproved, because he was not authorised to negatiate with the foreign countries, even if congress approved the deal.... Otherwise the foreign country could use the incedent against us.



His signatures would not be recognized as legal, because legally he was never president.
It is the task of the court to say what the law is-- or more precisely, how the law will be regarded by the government.

Wrong!!!
See Marbury v Madison.


Not interested in what powers the court has claimed for themselves.

By that reasoning, if the supreme court was to suddenly claim they have a right to suspend the constitution, and create a dictatorship with the cheif justice as dictator, than it must be constitutional...

Sorry I have more faith in the founders than that.


The Court enforces the law, they do not decide the law.
The executive branch enforces the law. I can just imagine a bunch of old justices in robes trying to enforce the law. It's a comedic image.

That is the role of the legislature.
The role of the legislature is to make the law-- to say what the law will be. It cannot interpret the law-- say what the law is.


One could not commit a series of murders, than be released simply because the judge rules that the law allows for the murder of people under 18.
One certainly could, albeit an appellate judge would probably declare a mistake of law and demand a trial anyway, perhaps declaring a mistrial if one occurred.


You are missing the point of the analogy.


By the way an impeachment is not a trial. It's a formal process, in which a public official is accused of a crime.
Not contradictory to anything I said. Impeachment leads to a trial before the Senate (of non-justiciable format, see Nixon v United States) after all. I'm not sure where you're going with this either way. It doesn't prevent a pardon, and it doesn't keep the question of the legality of the signature of a de facto president since deposed out of the courts.
B.) Nixon was never convicted
Nixon v United States, not United States v Nixon. Nixon v United States was a case about the impeachment, trial, and conviction of a judge named Walter Nixon.

C.) "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ........ and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Hmm, true enough. Doesn't prevent the angle Nixon the president took though-- resign when evidence gets out, faster than the speed of impeachment.

Funny thing though, if one was to resign with a more serious crime, than they would skip the impeachment, and go straight to trial.

For example, lets say Obama was an illegal alien (hypothetically) and he resigned to escape impeachment. He would than be arrested and put on trial, and if convicted he would be deported.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 11:15:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
First, there would be a bright flash, and winds would rush past you. Then, seconds later you would hear the sound. The large boom created might knock paintings off walls, books off shelves, and you off your feet. Heat created by the explosion, can melt, burn, or mildly scald you depending on your proximity to the president at the time. Then comes the radiation which in previous events similar, has caused cancer, and guilt.