Constitutionality of Obama's Actions

[xBiffx]

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/25/obama-ignore-order-atlanta-court/

First, I am not posting this regarding the issue on trial, whatsoever. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A BIRTHER ISSUE DISCUSSION. I am not a birther and I think the attorneys for the prosecution are nutcases. That said, there is still the constitutional issue of checks and balances and separation of powers. The executive branch pretty much thumbed its nose at the judicial branch of government and at the Constitution. This is the reason for the post.

Regardless of the merits of the case, doesn't Obama have a legal obligation to honor the subpoena? Where does he have the authority to decide what subpoenas he chooses to honor? Where does it say that the merits of the case have bearing on the decisions of the judge? Doesn't this set the precedent for executive branch to ignore any court ruling?

Setting aside the legal arguments, wouldn't it have been easier to just appear and settle the matter? What could be the argument for the president not having time to attend?

 

[Doppel]

This president, like the last, doesn't really care about the constitution. In regard to this case, at some point you need to just tell judges to piss off in his case because in theory an unlimited number of them can come up with this crap and screw his productivity up.

 

[drebo]

LOL...Obama and productivity have a negative correlation.

Maybe you're on to something...keep him busy with frivolous lawsuits so he can't fuck up the country any more.

 

[Bowfinger]

ROFL! Obama should just send them an image of Atlanta burning during the Civil War, then ask if they're really looking for a rematch. What a ridiculous waste of time and resources.

 

[Nemesis 1]

LOL I been thinking about this for awhile I was wondering what the trigger was going to be to set off the next event . Now I know LOL. Marshall law coming at ya . When it happens you will ask yourself how I new . I know my fate . Do you know yours?

 

[monovillage]

I think I remember various judges and lawsuits and whatever that have tried to get a sitting President into their court for a variety of reasons. It's always politically motivated and usually the President just ignores it, think Whitewater or Iran/contra.

 

[woolfe9999]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

[CitizenKain]

LOL I been thinking about this for awhile I was wondering what the trigger was going to be to set off the next event . Now I know LOL. Marshall law coming at ya . When it happens you will ask yourself how I new . I know my fate . Do you know yours?

?

 

[xBiffx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

Given that executive privilege isn't actually in the constitution I'm not sure how this argument explains the constitutionality of the president's actions. Even so, it would appear that the prosecutors have done their part by showing "that the Presidential material is essential to the justice of the case." One step further, if you don't think that is still the case, the attorneys for the defense didn't even show up either, let alone Obama himself.

Bottom line, the executive privileged defense doesn't seem to hold water given the fact that there wasn't even anyone at the trial for the defense to argue it. Also, it doesn't appear that the defense even tried to use it in this case, instead they just flipped the entire judicial branch the bird.

 

[Texashiker]

No man is above the law, and that includes the president.

 

[theeedude]

Judge got ODS. Executive privilege is the only treatment.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The US lost their constitution long ago. It's just a very rough set of guidelines that should possibly maybe be considered thinking of being followed by the government. I doubt the government even knows what the constitution is or cares about finding out. They just do whatever they want. They're a dictatorship and have been for quite a long time. Anything that benefits them, they'll do, anything that benefits the people, they wont do. I'm just glad I don't live there.

 

[etrigan420]

Given that executive privilege isn't actually in the constitution I'm not sure how this argument explains the constitutionality of the president's actions.

So? The very next sentence in the wiki explains the precedent.

The "right" of the President to scratch his own ass isn't in the Constitution either, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to do it?

Side Note: Lololol, Atlanta...figures.

 

[monovillage]

Given that executive privilege isn't actually in the constitution I'm not sure how this argument explains the constitutionality of the president's actions. Even so, it would appear that the prosecutors have done their part by showing "that the Presidential material is essential to the justice of the case." One step further, if you don't think that is still the case, the attorneys for the defense didn't even show up either, let alone Obama himself.

Bottom line, the executive privileged defense doesn't seem to hold water given the fact that there wasn't even anyone at the trial for the defense to argue it. Also, it doesn't appear that the defense even tried to use it in this case, instead they just flipped the entire judicial branch the bird.

I didn't know that he didn't even have an attorney at the hearing. From what I recall the Administration had an attorney or someone to file any exemption. *rest edited out*

 

[Fern]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

I don't consider myself any of sort of expert on the issue of Executive privilege, however this case doesn't seem to fit the bill.

Seems to me exec priv involves protecting info about the President performing his duties, not something purely personal like this.

In any case, I think for many practical reasons the President should be given great leeway. I don't see why he can't answer the questions in written form or over the telephone/TV etc. The security preparation alone should make this obvious.

I don't see how Obama himself can testify much to his birth. WTH would he actually remember?

Fern

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

?

A pic of a Marshall would be better since the actual word for both Martial law and martial arts is the same.

 

[xBiffx]

I didn't know that he didn't even have an attorney at the hearing. From what I recall the Administration had an attorney or someone to file any exemption. The Judge should issue a bench warrant.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html

Another story about it. Shows no one on the defense side in attendance. I think it's obvious this President thinks he is above the law.

 

[HomerJS]

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/25/obama-ignore-order-atlanta-court/

First, I am not posting this regarding the issue on trial, whatsoever. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A BIRTHER ISSUE DISCUSSION. I am not a birther and I think the attorneys for the prosecution are nutcases. That said, there is still the constitutional issue of checks and balances and separation of powers. The executive branch pretty much thumbed its nose at the judicial branch of government and at the Constitution. This is the reason for the post.

Regardless of the merits of the case, doesn't Obama have a legal obligation to honor the subpoena? Where does he have the authority to decide what subpoenas he chooses to honor? Where does it say that the merits of the case have bearing on the decisions of the judge? Doesn't this set the precedent for executive branch to ignore any court ruling?

Setting aside the legal arguments, wouldn't it have been easier to just appear and settle the matter? What could be the argument for the president not having time to attend?

Shortly after the slaves were freed black men were required to carry "papers" to prove they were free men and were subject to this abuse for years.

Despite the fact the President can't be sued while in office, I'm sure you would love to see Obama demeaned by showing up in court to show everyone his "papers". It's all part of the de-legitimization effort.

And my last point is why the fuck should he?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/25/obama-ignore-order-atlanta-court/

First, I am not posting this regarding the issue on trial, whatsoever. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A BIRTHER ISSUE DISCUSSION. I am not a birther and I think the attorneys for the prosecution are nutcases. That said, there is still the constitutional issue of checks and balances and separation of powers. The executive branch pretty much thumbed its nose at the judicial branch of government and at the Constitution. This is the reason for the post.

Regardless of the merits of the case, doesn't Obama have a legal obligation to honor the subpoena? Where does he have the authority to decide what subpoenas he chooses to honor? Where does it say that the merits of the case have bearing on the decisions of the judge? Doesn't this set the precedent for executive branch to ignore any court ruling?

Setting aside the legal arguments, wouldn't it have been easier to just appear and settle the matter? What could be the argument for the president not having time to attend?

Birther judges should be given attention?

It's not like this issue isn't a dead, cremated and buried horse already, why on earth should he take time to answer a nutty judge who won't let it go?

 

[xBiffx]

Birther judges should be given attention?

It's not like this issue isn't a dead, cremated and buried horse already, why on earth should he take time to answer a nutty judge who won't let it go?

The merits of the case are independent of a judges orders. That is the point. You also failed miserably at reading my OP.

 

[xBiffx]

Shortly after the slaves were freed black men were required to carry "papers" to prove they were free men and were subject to this abuse for years.

Despite the fact the President can't be sued while in office, I'm sure you would love to see Obama demeaned by showing up in court to show everyone his "papers". It's all part of the de-legitimization effort.

And my last point is why the fuck should he?

Nice try on the race card. GTFO.

To the point in bold, you have something to back up that statement?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The merits of the case are independent of a judges orders. That is the point. You also failed miserably at reading my OP.

Whenever i read your posts i get a little bit dumber so don't blame me for wanting to keep my sanity.

I'm not aware of the US court system but it'd seem strange to me if just any judge for whatever reason could subpoena the president under whatever guise (such as a lawsuit) he wants to.

But you know that better than me, obviously, so tell me, is that the way it works in the US?

 

[xBiffx]

Whenever i read your posts i get a little bit dumber so don't blame me for wanting to keep my sanity.

I'm not aware of the US court system but it'd seem strange to me if just any judge for whatever reason could subpoena the president under whatever guise (such as a lawsuit) he wants to.

But you know that better than me, obviously, so tell me, is that the way it works in the US?

So you insult me, claim ignorance, and then ask me to help you understand something? I'm not sure how things work where you are but that's not the way to go about finding out about something here.

To your question, since apparently we haven't lost all civility in the U.S. so I will answer it, a judge can subpoena anyone they want given the proper justification. The President isn't above the law. The only thing protected for the President is anything regarding his official duties as president. This doesn't seem to fit that description since its a personal matter and not protected.

 

[HomerJS]

Nice try on the race card. GTFO.

To the point in bold, you have something to back up that statement?

So challenging Obama's birth in court something that hasen't been done for any Presidential candidate, not even McCain who wasn't born on US soil is just a big fat coincidence? It has absolutely nothing to do with him being black?

Since Hawaii certified his birth if these knuckleheads were really concerned about the country their suit would be aimed at the state of Hawaii. If the certificate is illigitimate you go after the issuer not the issuee.

Presidents cannot be sued for any actions taken while in office, only for actions they took or failed to take before assuming office. Again if this was a legitimate issue Hawaii would be the defendant.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Do you understand that this was an administrative hearing? Obama wasn't a defendant. Orly Taitz filed on behalf of her client to have Obama testify on behalf of her client. The judge just didn't quash the thing. He has no authority to issue such order.

Please do some research before you rage on. This whole thing is stupid.