8/13/2010

BATTY! – LAWYERS UP! – SPOCKY?

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:32 am

Amendment 14, hmmm.

Amendment 22, ah hah!

Logic, oh my!

Oh the overlapping, the overlapping circles, the overlapping legal logic circles, so united.

Seems the 22nd Amendment doesn’t need to be changed just "understood"/interpreted with original intent, and paranoia like of around business accounting "separations" and safeguards.

Not sure about the 14th.   Haven’t even looked at it yet, since concern over their being over 300k per year born so in just 2008, so "illegally" and with the 14th a "carrot" towards "illegal" encouragement.

See though now, please, the overlapping legality of two as one in marriage in the US legally and so under the purview of the 22nd Amendment as Clintons.  I am talking not about teases dreaming of "marriage" but hard core full blown intimacy and unions like the Clintons of legally, as long as "married" as two logic circles never not with some overlap.

Batty?  Batty, the Clintons’ monolith of marketed "two-fer" though inseparable in law to separate circles?

Spocky?  Spocky, the logic that 22nd Amendment forbids all of a President from being returned into any holding, holding in itimacy of White House office, of office of the president, after two terms have been served?  Spocky that legally "Hillary" aka Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton was never to be legally "birthed" as a candidate for President, post President William Jefferson Clinton’s first term completion?  Spocky that legally "Hillary" was never to be "legally" birthed to "candidate for President" as 22nd Amendment forbids all of "Bill" from returning via "election"?

Batty?  That Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton so such, undivided, not, and logically, allowed, legally to be birthed or naturalized into any office within our "line of succession" to our presidency, and that essentially President Obama is in, arguably, a clear and certain violation of his oath of office to defend our Constitution?   Spocky?   Elementary?

Too cute?  Too cute the original intent of just the 22nd Amendment of Republican "sexy" with language and rhyme and reason the beat and words of standard marriage vows around "holding" as the intimate and indivisible so associating, inseparably, the intimate and corruptable, of an intimate of a President, regardless of sex, but fully concerned about sex, and corruptability, and greed, and slothfulness around "democracy"?

Amendment 14, hmmm?

Amendment 22, ah hah?

Clear and present language just needing "legal" ruling on "interpretation" around "original intent"?

Logic, oh my!

A spouse of a term limited president, regardless of sex (their sex) cannot be legally "elected" to a "holding" of office while electing such of inseparable in marriage and marriage rights to "holding" also at least also is such automatically an "electing" to returning some to all of a term limited president to such.

So, is it now that "Hillary" is an illegal Secretary of State so indivisible and without even considering how so many basic accounting principles exist to protect from such lines of overlapping blurring?   Is it still only arguable but while country is wise to be in an arguing mood, and with President  Obama  just a ruling and interpretation from "illegal" in with a ruled violation of his oath to defend our Constitution?

Lawyers up!   Seems, we do not need to amend either 14th or 22nd Amendments or call for a constitutional convention convening.  Seems, we just need to study and asses the existing language within and around so many other standard practices and even "checks and balances" of ours now to help protect us citizens even from absolute power corrupting even not absolutely, like just, intimately in marriage selfish "lying" for spousal defending.

That we have in case of Clintons two lawyers publicly known to be "liars" only helps dismiss the batty though not yet them as "batty" most.  Lawyers up!  Clintons have already established themselves of "lying for a spouse" a hire calling than "representing", democratically and transparently, and indivisible.

As Clintons play it, none of circle of "Bill" returns by "election" with a election of "Hillary" though inseparable in laws of marriage and standard around ‘no law should set another asunder’ like.   For convenience:  Clintons,  Clintons, are of a legal union leaving their logic circles inseparable and yes now in these days past days a wife’s circle just played as a circle within a husband’s circle and not an equal circle always of some overlapping, and unavoidable co-action.

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.

(required)

(required)