Why Would Cons Do This?

[Satchel]

is this just about his policies too?


A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.

WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.

READ MORE:The Link

 

[NEWDOC2002]

Ok it's Bull Crap. But I guess that means your side's crap smells like roses? We can play that game 24/7. Care to post something that actually affects the country?

 

[Satchel]

You go first.

 

[Leftwith]

I agree it's a waste of time. When your opponent is the worst, most corrupt President in history, there are hundreds of fronts to attack.

I think that's part of the problem. Obama does so much ****, there aren't enough resources out there to go after all of it. And no one knows where to place the bullseye. Paralysis by analysis.

 

[Satchel]

All you have to do is hate enough. You'll find a way.

 

[Crockett]

I think this emphatically points out that while some conservatives are brilliant, some are really stupid. Just like with liberals. You need to get the stupid voters excited to win elections which is why all this Kenya and Obama is really a Muslim ******** keeps getting dredged up, even by a lot of people smart enough to know its complete ********.

 

[ShinerTX]

If you step aside from all the partisan crap, it is an interesting question, and I've never really heard a solid answer. Who determined Barack Obama's eligibility originally? My understanding was that it was the Hawaiian Secretary of State. So to me, this is an issue determined by the states, not the federal government. Obama's lawyers are correct, that that President is elected by Electors. But aren't electors determined by the states themselves? I mean, Nebraska and Vermont have different rules for choosing their electors than the other states. How can they do this if it is a federal issue? Virginia has determined that Newt Gingrich did not meet the standard to be on their primary ballot? How could they do this if it was a Federal Issue?

 

[ShinerTX]

There seems to be plenty that the courts should sort out.

 

[Mesohorny]

Orly Taitz is deranged.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ShinerTX]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Crockett]

"If you step aside from all the partisan crap, it is an interesting question, and I've never really heard a solid answer." Shiner.

Really?? -- you must not trust the lamestream media at all. Here is the information direct from the White House.The Link

Also, a credible organization has taken time to really delve into the conspiracy theories (instead of dismissing them as a bunch of crazy conspiracy theory wackos as I admit I have done) and produced the followingThe Link

 

[ShinerTX]

Crockett, your White House link does not work.

Look, I'm not questioning anything about Obama. To do so is pointless. What I'm questioning is the process. Who decides which candidates are eligible for which ballots. Is it a state issue or a federal issue? If it is a federal issue, one would think that a federal judge or someone else in a nonpolitical federal position would have the responsibility of reviewing a candidates eligibility. I think this lawsuit may serve the purpose of answering that question.

 

[dheiman]

Before we debate the merit of this, can we even trust this story? The only sites running this article are typically questioned by our lefty friends.
I don't see one lamestream media site carrying this.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This may be a dumb case, but the judge did the right thing. Obama's lawyers couldn't come up with any authority suggesting that a President doesn't have to answer a subpoena.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly held that becoming President doesn't give you immunity from a lawsuit, nor does it abate the lawsuit. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). If he can be sued and isn't entitled to an abatement, then it stands to reason that he wouldn't have any special protection from subpoenas.

 

[chango]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[F1Longhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TxStHorn]

I typically am in agreement with Mr. Deez on matters of law.

However, I think Mahili is clearly overreaching, even under Clinton v. Jones. If he needs legal authority showing that the president cannot be simply commanded to present himself in court on a very specific date, he might start with the Supreme Court of the United States, which strongly implied in Clinton v. Jones that a court cannot "compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place."

Likewise, if he needs proof that summoning the president of the United States to testify on a frivolous issue would be "cumulative" of existing evidence, he might consider discovering something called "Google."

Fortunately, it is unlikely that Malihi's gross overreach will actually amount to something. As an administrative law judge, Malihi lacks any real authority to enforce this subpoena, and must refer the matter to a trial judge in order to actually try to haul Obama into court. It is unlikely that a state trial judge will share Malihi's opinion on the law, or his disconnect with commonly known facts about the president's birth.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---