But the question is whether this was the law in 1961. Although I am not a lawyer, I have been paying a lot of attention to the Obama BC issues. I have probably learned enough reading about the issue to be a lawyer. I am not kidding. For instance, let me throw out a couple of legal phrases: ex post facto, for one. See, ex post facto prohibits the attack on his presidency to be brought by way of the BC issue. Why? Because it is “ex” meaning from, “post” meaning after, and “facto” meaning facto or short for factor and the root of that word is “fact” and if you add an “s” you get facts. In other words, after the facors or after the facts.
That is why the tricky DemocRATS made everyone vote for that Bill to declare that Hawaii was a state (once again) on the fiftieth anniversary of its OWN STATEHOOD AND THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN THERE. I think if one goes back and examines that Bill, they just might see something fishy about it. It would not even surprise me if it were BACK DATED to predate the BC issues that have been raised. I have looked online and I can’t find it. If anyone has a link A VERIFIABLE LINK to it, please post same. Out.
Just found out that the bill is a non-binding resolution. I don’t think that can bypass the constitution.
Nice try, troll. You’ve only been around since May and try to sound logical. But what you don’t know is that there is legal precedence.
In the 19th century two Senators were sworn into office and only later discovered to be foreign nationals - not U.S. citizens. Their names were struck from the Senate records as though they had never served there.
As a usurper Barack Obama’s presidency will be voided. All legislation he has signed, all appointments he has made, and all treaties and executive orders will be VOID.
New elections will have to be held. For the Democrats it will be tough sledding, as all the Democratic Party heirarchy must of been in on the fraud. It will likely mean prison time for them, and that includes Pelosi, Reid, and Dean.