Cute how Dr. Laity, Esq. imagines himself a teacher.Laity wrote:During such time as the counting of the electoral votes, threatening the sitting president with bodily harm is not protected activity. Doing harm to the President is not an official function of any member of Congress. The Vice-President can be delegated to do anything within the president’s purview. Biden delegated his duty to keep the border secure. Harris however has failed to do that. The President is the executive officer of the ENTIRE executive branch. During time of war he is Commander in Chief of the Military. The “invitation” of a President to speak before the Congress is a mere formality. It is NOT required by law that the President be invited. It is a mandatory “Shall” do to give information to the Congress. NO ONE! Not even the speaker of the House can refuse to allow him to do so. In my class you would receive an “F-“.
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
P&E comment:
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
That may be technically true, but I know that you know that, in reality, they are elected as a team.
When I mark my ballot, I am voting for a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for the two candidates of the party in question.
Each elector casts two votes, one for POTUS and one for VPOTUS. But it is the same elector who casts both votes. I believe that, in all states, the electors are pledged to vote for the persons named on the ballot; that is, the candidate for POTUS and the candidate for VPOTUS who were nominated by the party.
In theory, electors could rebel and vote for someone other than the two that they are pledged to. Some states have laws that purport to prevent so-called "faithless electors", but I don't believe that the Constitutionality of such laws has ever been definitively decided by SCOTUS. There have, of course, been a handful of faithless electors over the years, but it has never made a difference in the election. As such, it is a moot point and the courts don't entertain moot points. If it ever DOES change the outcome of an election, I suspect that SCOTUS would take the case in a heartbeat.
Question: Has any faithless elector ever been prosecuted under such state laws? That would make it a non-moot point.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Remember when Jimmie Carter decided to make his VP, Walter Mondale, his chief of staff? IIRC, that didn't last very long. I'm not even sure that it ever happened, but I remember Carter saying he was going to do so.northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 2:42 pm And that runner-up thing, which ended up with a VP that was not a "running mate" with the President, worked out so well we amended the Constitution.
What Laity, and most folks, don't remember is that a VP with executive branch duties is generally a new thing. The traditional role was that the VP would be President of the Senate, a generally ceremonial role, save for the ability to break ties (and the vote counting thing) and as a replacement if we lost the President. This led John Nance Garner to refer to the vice presidency as "not worth a bucket of warm piss"
Oh, the other main, non-Constitutional role of the Vice Presidential candidate is to balance the Presidential ticket for the election.
If a President does not like the VP, they have 2 options:
1. Don't give them anything to do.
2. Replace them as your running mate for the next election.
These options have been repeated many times.
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Also cute that Rondeau allows the dissenting opinions in because she and her 3 followers believe he is correct and is actually teaching.bob wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 3:42 pm P&E comment:Cute how Dr. Laity, Esq. imagines himself a teacher.Laity wrote:During such time as the counting of the electoral votes, threatening the sitting president with bodily harm is not protected activity. Doing harm to the President is not an official function of any member of Congress. The Vice-President can be delegated to do anything within the president’s purview. Biden delegated his duty to keep the border secure. Harris however has failed to do that. The President is the executive officer of the ENTIRE executive branch. During time of war he is Commander in Chief of the Military. The “invitation” of a President to speak before the Congress is a mere formality. It is NOT required by law that the President be invited. It is a mandatory “Shall” do to give information to the Congress. NO ONE! Not even the speaker of the House can refuse to allow him to do so. In my class you would receive an “F-“.
X 4
X 33
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Also, the VP taking over as actually President as opposed to Acting President is not in the Constitution and was not a given the first time it came up.
William Henry Harrison died just a month in and amid uncertainty as to whether a vice president succeeded a deceased president, or merely took on his duties, Tyler immediately took the presidential oath of office, setting a lasting precedent.
It is probably one of the few things that is not written law but just accepted and therefore works that Trump did not look at and say "phuck it" and reminded us all once again why we cannot have nice things and if it ain't written down, it don't really count. Or won't until it's spent 3 years being litigated to the Supreme Court at least twice.
ETA:
The 25th Amendment actually settled this question, but who here thinks Trump wouldn't challenge that if it suited him and Clarence Thomas would vote in Trump's favor even if it meant voting that no matter that he has assumed room temperature, is stiff and starting to smell, he is still alive, actually President and can still declassify anything he wants.
William Henry Harrison died just a month in and amid uncertainty as to whether a vice president succeeded a deceased president, or merely took on his duties, Tyler immediately took the presidential oath of office, setting a lasting precedent.
It is probably one of the few things that is not written law but just accepted and therefore works that Trump did not look at and say "phuck it" and reminded us all once again why we cannot have nice things and if it ain't written down, it don't really count. Or won't until it's spent 3 years being litigated to the Supreme Court at least twice.
ETA:
The 25th Amendment actually settled this question, but who here thinks Trump wouldn't challenge that if it suited him and Clarence Thomas would vote in Trump's favor even if it meant voting that no matter that he has assumed room temperature, is stiff and starting to smell, he is still alive, actually President and can still declassify anything he wants.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
I also think that if Trump somehow IS actually elected again in 2024 and lives until 2028, he will announce that he is running for a third term, claiming that, since his first two terms were non-consecutive, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply. (This all assumes that he isn't impeached AGAIN and convicted).Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:18 pm Also, the VP taking over as actually President as opposed to Acting President is not in the Constitution and was not a given the first time it came up.
William Henry Harrison died just a month in and amid uncertainty as to whether a vice president succeeded a deceased president, or merely took on his duties, Tyler immediately took the presidential oath of office, setting a lasting precedent.
It is probably one of the few things that is not written law but just accepted and therefore works that Trump did not look at and say "phuck it" and reminded us all once again why we cannot have nice things and if it ain't written down, it don't really count. Or won't until it's spent 3 years being litigated to the Supreme Court at least twice.
ETA:
The 25th Amendment actually settled this question, but who here thinks Trump wouldn't challenge that if it suited him and Clarence Thomas would vote in Trump's favor even if it meant voting that no matter that he has assumed room temperature, is stiff and starting to smell, he is still alive, actually President and can still declassify anything he wants.
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
P&E comment:
Which is rather rich, as Laity's purpose in life is to ineffectually tell people what they ought to be doing.Laity wrote:[N]o one should presume to tell another person what they “need” [to do].
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Not much room to dispute the 22nd Amendment...noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:44 am
I also think that if Trump somehow IS actually elected again in 2024 and lives until 2028, he will announce that he is running for a third term, claiming that, since his first two terms were non-consecutive, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply. (This all assumes that he isn't impeached AGAIN and convicted).
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
I agree. To me, the amendment is pretty clear. That won't stop him from making the claim and it won't stop that MAGA crowd from agreeing.Gregg wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:32 amNot much room to dispute the 22nd Amendment...noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:44 am
I also think that if Trump somehow IS actually elected again in 2024 and lives until 2028, he will announce that he is running for a third term, claiming that, since his first two terms were non-consecutive, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply. (This all assumes that he isn't impeached AGAIN and convicted).
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I was merely making a prediction of what Trump would say in 2028, when he announces his run for another term. Fortunately, I don't think he will live that long. He is already 75 years old. In 2028, he will be 81. I diet of Big Macs, fries and diet coke is not conducive to exceptionally long life.
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
I'm surprised and dismayed he's made it this long.
- Flatpoint High
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
- Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
- Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
- Verified: ✅
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
it's the adrenchrome
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
"For completeness": P&E comments:
Laity wrote:Read my book and learn what an NBC actually is.
* * *
No Court has disagreed with me. My cases are always dismissed on some spurious and specious claim of “No Standing” or some such technicality. I have ample U.S. Supreme Court precedent on my side. Obama is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. Neither are Duckworth, Gabbard, Harris, Mc Cain, Cruz, Rubio or Jindal.
* * *
Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA. She faces “execution” if she is ever convicted in a court martial under UCMJ, Article 103 -Spies
* * *
Trump made great efforts to reduce illegal immigration by having a border wall built and having public officials in his cabinet who actually cared about our border security. Biden purposely made efforts to scuttle those efforts, therefore violating his oath of office.
* * *
It was Obama who had all his records sealed. The previous usurper, Chester Arthur, BURNED HIS PAPERS.
* * *
Mere birth in the USA is NOT sufficient to be President. Obama’s purported parents Obama, Sr. and Stanley Dunham, weren’t legally married. Senior was never a US Citizen. Obama was born with BRITISH citizenship.
* * *
Mere birth in the US does not suffice to be President. One’s parents must also be citizens of the USA.
* * *
Pelosi is guilty of fraud because she stated that Obama met all criteria to be President. He does NOT!!
* * *
Obama will be an issue till the day that he is convicted, found guilty and faces the appropriate justice by the Military under the UCMJ Article 103-Spies.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
I'm sorry, did I miss Nancy joining the Army? Obama at least has a tenuous connection to the UCMJ and the military inasmuch as he was Commander in Chief.Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA. She faces “execution” if she is ever convicted in a court martial under UCMJ, Article 103 -Spies
Obama will be an issue till the day that he is convicted, found guilty and faces the appropriate justice by the Military under the UCMJ Article 103-Spies.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Pelosi was an accomplice to Obama's treasonous fraud, therefore, the military has jurisdiction.
/drlaityesq
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 10:19 pmI'm sorry, did I miss Nancy joining the Army? Obama at least has a tenuous connection to the UCMJ and the military inasmuch as he was Commander in Chief.Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA. She faces “execution” if she is ever convicted in a court martial under UCMJ, Article 103 -Spies
Obama will be an issue till the day that he is convicted, found guilty and faces the appropriate justice by the Military under the UCMJ Article 103-Spies.
I know that POTUS is Commander in Chief and there is therefore a (very) tenous connection, but I don't see where in the above quote from the UCMJ that the President would fit. He/she is not a member of a "regular component of the armed forces", a cadet or midshipman or any of the other persons or categories of persons listed.UCMJ wrote: (a)The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1)Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of
enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their
actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the
armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2)Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3)
(A)While on inactive-duty training and during any of the periods specified in subparagraph (B)—
(i)members of a reserve component; and
(ii)members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, but only
when in Federal service.
(B)The periods referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
(i)Travel to and from the inactive-duty training site of the member, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(ii)Intervals between consecutive periods of inactive-duty training on the same day, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(iii)Intervals between inactive-duty training on consecutive days, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(4)Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5)Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6)Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7)Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8)Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when
assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9)Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10)In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11)Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and
outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12)Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which
is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(13)Individuals belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316), who violate the law of war.
IANAL, but I don't think that the President is subject to the UCMJ. I don't think that any of our regular readers or contributors here think so, either.
I strongly suspect that none of the RWNJs who insist that Obama can be court-martialled have ever read even this much of the UCMJ. I believe that, if a retired service member is charged under the UCMJ, they must be recalled to active duty for the duration of their trial. Does that mean that the whackos want Obama recalled to active duty? That would mean re-installing him as President, would it not?
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Most of them never even read the fine print of their Article 15 papers.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- Luke
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
- Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Laity!! With a new GOP House coming in, no excuses, time for the letter-writing campaign to begin again! But this time Rev Dr Laity Esq must not forget to include SHERIFF'S KITS. Still absolutely positive that's why it failed last time and it's really Mike Volin's fault.
Bob, has Laity announced he's started working on the letter-writing campaign yet? Those letters are not going to write themselves. For real, this time, this could be it!
Bob, has Laity announced he's started working on the letter-writing campaign yet? Those letters are not going to write themselves. For real, this time, this could be it!
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Almost! P&E comment:orlylicious wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 pm This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Laity!! With a new GOP House coming in, no excuses, time for the letter-writing campaign to begin again! But this time Rev Dr Laity Esq must not forget to include SHERIFF'S KITS. Still absolutely positive that's why it failed last time and it's really Mike Volin's fault.
Bob, has Laity announced he's started working on the letter-writing campaign yet? Those letters are not going to write themselves. For real, this time, this could be it!
Some jerk* helpfully passed on your excellent suggestion of MOAR letters and sheriff's kits to the House.Laity wrote:[It] is my life mission to see that Obama IS Court-Martialed, found guilty and faces the consequences for espionage and treason.
*
- Ben-Prime
- Posts: 3073
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
- Location: Worldwide Availability
- Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
- Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
That jerk does get around and do good every now again, don't they? Whew.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Just when I fear Laity might have joined the Dead Birthers Docket (NADT), he's back with a P&E comment:
2. The Speaker doesn't need to be even a U.S. citizen.
3. Ineligible people still may be in the line of succession; they'll just get skipped over.
1. Roberts, who was born in Canada, is a naturalized citizen.Laity wrote:Just TODAY, John Roberts of FOX news continued to express a misunderstanding of the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. When his name was suggested as a candidate for Speaker of the House, Roberts quipped that he wasn’t born in the United States and was therefore not an NBC. Without mentioning that one’s parents must be US Citizens themselves, Roberts further acknowleged that anyone in line to BE VP or POTUS “MUST be a Natural Born Citizen”.
2. The Speaker doesn't need to be even a U.S. citizen.
3. Ineligible people still may be in the line of succession; they'll just get skipped over.
- northland10
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Being a churchy dude, I'm glad he was wrong in 3 ways. In church stuff we use three all of the time, such as the Trinity, Peter denying Christ, the three-legged stool, and the meter for the closing hymn next Sunday.*bob wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:15 pm Just when I fear Laity might have joined the Dead Birthers Docket (NADT), he's back with a P&E comment:1. Roberts, who was born in Canada, is a naturalized citizen.Laity wrote:Just TODAY, John Roberts of FOX news continued to express a misunderstanding of the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. When his name was suggested as a candidate for Speaker of the House, Roberts quipped that he wasn’t born in the United States and was therefore not an NBC. Without mentioning that one’s parents must be US Citizens themselves, Roberts further acknowleged that anyone in line to BE VP or POTUS “MUST be a Natural Born Citizen”.
2. The Speaker doesn't need to be even a U.S. citizen.
3. Ineligible people still may be in the line of succession; they'll just get skipped over.
► Show Spoiler
101010
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:45 pm
Being a churchy dude, I'm glad he was wrong in 3 ways. In church stuff we use three all of the time, such as the Trinity, Peter denying Christ, the three-legged stool, and the meter for the closing hymn next Sunday.*
► Show Spoiler
Off Topic
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
I'm sure that Roberts wasn't trying to hold an exhaustive discussion of what constitutes an NBC.
To a Vattelist, being born in Canada is an immediate disqualification, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
To others, an NBC is one who is a citizen at birth. For most, that status is conferred by the 14th Amendment, but the law says that one born abroad, to US citizen parents, is a citizen at birth. Such a child need not apply for naturalization. See John McCain (born in Panama, outside the Canal Zone, to US parents).
To a Vattelist, being born in Canada is an immediate disqualification, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
To others, an NBC is one who is a citizen at birth. For most, that status is conferred by the 14th Amendment, but the law says that one born abroad, to US citizen parents, is a citizen at birth. Such a child need not apply for naturalization. See John McCain (born in Panama, outside the Canal Zone, to US parents).
- Sam the Centipede
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm
Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris
Was it Mario Apuzzo' (requiescat in deliquio) who posited multiple grades of US citizenship, which in my mind harkened to the colored belts awarded in judo, karate, etc.?
Or was it one of the other boorishly blathering birthers?
Or was it one of the other boorishly blathering birthers?