Note to Obama’s jewish handlers: He is not “President-elect” until elected by the electoral college; and “President-elect” is not an office

Posted by T on November 24, 2008
Politics

"Office of the President Elect"
Lining up a bunch of flags does not change those facts.

Tags:

4 Comments to Note to Obama’s jewish handlers: He is not “President-elect” until elected by the electoral college; and “President-elect” is not an office

  • Moreover, the President-elect, let alone the presumptive future President-elect, does not nominate or appoint people to office.

    Article 2, Clause 2: [The President] shall … nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Officers of the United States…

    One hates to always be the “heavy.” But we are dealing with people for whom written constraints have no force; if our leaders would at least remind the media about “technicalities” like the Constitution (even knowing that the Constitution is dead) might slow down the juggernaut a little.

  • What have we heard about the Constitutional challenges to Obamugabe?

    I know that WorldNetDaily is trying to call the Electoral College’s members to heel via the Constitution, and the Supremes are having over 12 cases at present of the ‘People vs. Obama’ they need to slog through….

    Anyone have some news?

  • I’m inclined to think that there are two premises to contemplate here:

    1. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to run for President.
    2. He is President who is sworn in to that office by the Chief Justice.

    BO’s failure on (1) should have led to not reaching the point of (2). However, I think that these two premises swing on their own hinges. Having accomplished (2), even by fraud, he is President, even though ineligible to have run for that office.

    Perhaps we could entertain that (2) should be supplemented with other conditions, such as, “and accepted by the nation.” But it has been accepted by the nation. The platonic abstract truth that (1) fails in BO’s case cannot nullify (2).

    The failure on (1) could be grounds, I should think, for impeachment. But until and if such happens, his acts of office are actual acts of office.

    An analogy might be ordination. Say a man forged his seminary credential and cheated on his ordination exams and thus becomes ordained. Are his acts as minister now null and void? Are people he marries not really married, and people baptized by such a man not baptized? Again, they are, because of the office he carries, which depends on the act of the ordaining body, not his integrity. He can, and should be defrocked but if he is not, his acts continue to be valid. This has been ratified pretty universally by church law.

    As a post-script, I observe that the one thing that establishes that man as President, namely the oath in (2), was botched. Supposedly, they re-did it in private. But oaths are not supposed to be done in private. So this is how our rulers are mocking us, creating ambiguity and uncertainty. Not only (1) but (2) is a shaky at least in its presentation. Again, the oath has been accepted by our passive and ignorant people without a murmur, so de facto it is de jure (!). But they mock. They tear down the resistance. The head of Treasury is a blatant tax cheat. Everything about these people has the air of illicitness, but it is in-your-face. As if to set the stage for basically doing anything they want and knowing that resistance based on rule of law has already capitulated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*