Just Read the Law

I was doing research to rebut some of the arguments here, but decided to let the links do my work.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-disqualified/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d689f0d3d069
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...tthew-j-franck

Bottom line is that a statute can't override the Constitution. The Constitution only has 3 requirements: age (35), citizenship (Native-born), and residency (at least 14 years before election). Other than that, you can be a felon or whatever, Congress can not write a statute to exclude you. Only changing the Constitution can. Originally Posted by papadee

You cannot POSSIBLY be this stupid. You're putting us on.

Not sure about the first part. I haven't studied it enough.

Yes to the 2nd part because that was the premise of the OP. I've tried to stay on topic. Originally Posted by papadee

Read my post from above.
She kept classified information on an unsecured server.
This is in violation to executive order.
She attempted (and in seems to have succeeded to some degree) to conceal her actions. (See deleted documents...oh, that's right, you can't!)
This is obstruction of justice. (Nixon had to resign over concealed evidence, despite the fact that the only evidence was a tape recording his secretary "accidentally" recorded over.)
Denying the obvious makes a person look stupid.
There are few differences between what Hillary did and what Nixon did. One of these differences is that Hillary got away with it.

Read my post from above.
She kept classified information on an unsecured server.
This is in violation to executive order.
She attempted (and in seems to have succeeded to some degree) to conceal her actions. (See deleted documents...oh, that's right, you can't!)
This is obstruction of justice. (Nixon had to resign over concealed evidence, despite the fact that the only evidence was a tape recording his secretary "accidentally" recorded over.)
Denying the obvious makes a person look stupid.
There are few differences between what Hillary did and what Nixon did. One of these differences is that Hillary got away with it. Originally Posted by goodman0422

I never denied it, I just ignored it because this thread was about her being disqualified from Presidency. A narrow topic that I stayed on and didn't try to veer into the other 100 Clinton scandals already posted.

So is having an email/copy of a document, the same as having THE document? Is having a copy of the Constitution the same as having the original?
[/COLOR] Originally Posted by papadee

Do you think the SCOTUS Justices run down and look at the original?

BTW: Unless you are a Certified Birther ... YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO "GO THERE"!!!!

I never denied it, I just ignored it because this thread was about her being disqualified from Presidency. Originally Posted by papadee

Then the thread is done. She's "disqualified."

You cannot POSSIBLY be this stupid. You're putting us on. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh yes he can, lol.


Jim

Do you think the SCOTUS Justices run down and look at the original? Originally Posted by LexusLover

And if the SCOTUS tear up their copy, would they be in violation of this code?

There's no law that says if you have broken laws you cannot hold the office of the president.

The statement is accurate. There's 0 law that prevents someone who has broken laws from becoming president. Being "disqualified" is largely a *perception*

I.e. Nixon had to resign not because of his actions but because his party turned on him in calculation that if he maintained the presidency it would be damaging to their party. Based on public opinion largely.

Vs Clinton who only got more popular during his scandal and thus his party calculated that it was worth it to continue backing him.

I.e. Nixon had to resign not because of his actions but because his party turned on him in calculation that if he maintained the presidency it would be damaging to their party. Based on public opinion largely. Originally Posted by Stromprophet

That calculation didn't work out due to the actions of Gerald Ford. Republican party got shellacked regardless.

Vs Clinton who only got more popular during his scandal and thus his party calculated that it was worth it to continue backing him. Originally Posted by Stromprophet

that was unfortunate. Censuring him would have been a good compromise move, but they didn't go for it.

that was unfortunate. Censuring him would have been a good compromise move, but they didn't go for it. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Can't have it both ways. (Or apparently every single way)

So, there was a "moral" stand against Clinton and the GOP would have preferred if America didn't give Clinton a pass. But it shouldn't be a big deal to their very moral core when their party nominee has a long history of infedility, and confirmation accusations both before and prior of his behavior that this video confirms down to the tic tacs and trying to tongue and grope complete strangers because he believes his wealth and stardom and maleness means he can?

If Clinton had gotten caught on the hot mic talking about abusing women that may have played different. It is what it is.

Incidentally, the ultimate hypocrites, the same religious zealots who wanted Clinton's head in the 90s were one of the very few to defend Trump.

And if the SCOTUS tear up their copy, would they be in violation of this code? Originally Posted by papadee

You mean the one they scan on the copy machine to mark up? No!

"... filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States,..."

Do you have any intelligent questions to ask? Didn't think so.

Can't have it both ways. (Or apparently every single way)

So, there was a "moral" stand against Clinton and the GOP would have preferred if America didn't give Clinton a pass. But it shouldn't be a big deal to their very moral core when their party nominee has a long history of infedility, and confirmation accusations both before and prior of his behavior that this video confirms down to the tic tacs and trying to tongue and grope complete strangers because he believes his wealth and stardom and maleness means he can?

If Clinton had gotten caught on the hot mic talking about abusing women that may have played different. It is what it is.

Incidentally, the ultimate hypocrites, the same religious zealots who wanted Clinton's head in the 90s were one of the very few to defend Trump. Originally Posted by Stromprophet

Again you're spouting the lies of your lib-retard mantra, dick-head. Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice via suborning perjury when -- as chief executive officer of this country -- it was his fucking job to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art II, Sec 3)... which that POS did not do!

Absolutely MUST SEE video... It will happen over the next couple of weeks. Get Ready!

You mean the one they scan on the copy machine to mark up? No!

"... filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States,..."

Do you have any intelligent questions to ask? Didn't think so. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Not sure what your point is here since that is exactly the issue I raised.

If the original document is filed or deposited, and you receive a copy of that document, the filed original is still intact. Why is a copy of the document considered equal to the original? What if you print out an email document and delete the email? Or print out an email, save the email, but destroy the printed copy?

U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 was enacted in 1948. Electronic documents, mass emails, smartphones, scanners, etc weren't envisioned. So to distribute documents to multiple people, paper copies had to be made. And it was of utmost importance not to physically damage the original. Today that is not a concern.

To repeat from above and this is what I'm looking for clarification about,: Is a copy of the filed & deposited document considered legally equal to the original?