Replies

Will someone state unequivocally that Barack Obammy is constitutionally elgible to serve as POTUS!!

AND on what grounds?

Just asking as a concerned citizen. Should I pay my taxes, comply with federal laws draped over my life like a submarine net, or disregard all as Obama slices and dices any respect I might have had toward our benevolent government?

Just please, some honesty from someone.

1) Vice President Dick Cheney counted and certified Obama’s 378 Electoral College votes without objection from any of 535 members of Congress. Any one congressman and any one Senator could have submitted written objections to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes and an investigation would have had to be held. No one objected.
2)The 12th Amendment to the Constitution is unequivocal, whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College “SHALL BE PRESIDENT.”
3) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama in which is a constitutional requirement before exercising the powers of the office.
4)Federal judges have ruled Obama to be eligible in a number of lawsuits and appeals. While it would be too much to post their complete decisions here; some excerpts will have to suffice:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010

“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009

“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009

"1) Vice President Dick Cheney counted and certified Obama’s 378 Electoral College votes without objection from any of 535 members of Congress. Any one congressman and any one Senator could have submitted written objections to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes and an investigation would have had to be held. No one objected."

Certification of votes does not equate to confirmation of eligibility. It only means acceptance of the electoral college votes. A complicit or ignorant Congress does not equate to a legal, qualified president.

"2)The 12th Amendment to the Constitution is unequivocal, whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College “SHALL BE PRESIDENT.”"

You conveniently left off this part of the amendment:

"And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President"

Constitutional disability = UNQUALIFIED. And Congress had almost 2 months to complain, yet did nothing. A complicit or ignorant Congress does not equate to a qualified legal president.

"3) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama in which is a constitutional requirement before exercising the powers of the office."

This is not a requirement of any justice. It is merely a tradition. The justice is bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution, but Roberts failed. He is complicit as he knew full well at least 2 cases were dropped on his doorstep with regards to it but decided to stick his head in the sand and turn the other way.

"Federal judges have ruled Obama to be eligible in a number of lawsuits and appeals. While it would be too much to post their complete decisions here; some excerpts will have to suffice."

Only the Supreme Court can make this distinction as they are the only ones who can interpret the Constitution in this way. They have yet to decide. Any federal judge who doesn't immediately bump these cases to the Supreme Court are out of their jurisdiction and therefore any ruling they make is Unconstitutional. Article III states that the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in ONE Supreme Court. And since these cases evolved into ones where the "President" was involved:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

In other words, the federal judges so far have been usurping power outside of their jurisdiction. There have been so many violations of the Constitution in the past 2 years it's downright seditious and treasonous. If this happened 200 years ago there wouldn't be enough trees in the quad to handle all the public hangings.

The failure of congress, et. Al. to properly check credentials but instead be a rubber stamp does not make President Obama qualified to be POTUS. It may make him “President” but it “could” be in disregard to the U.S. Constitution.

Of course the proper constitutional means MUST be followed to remove a constitutionally unqualified POTUS. However, that cannot occur until the evidence, if any, is fully discovered and made public.

Full public disclosure is what is wanted, that is what LTC/Dr. Lakin wants. It really is that simple. IF the currentl POTUS is constitutionally qualified, and not just allowed to enter office unchallenged, then there is nothing to be concerned about. His proof (copies of original documents - not a COLB) of eligibility would silence most of those with concerns. Of course, it will never silence all.

I fail to see why the right of discovery in the LTC/Dr. Lakin case hurts either the current POTUS or the military. I only see it as a plus. Ultimately, I believe it would stregthen military discipline. If I didn’t think so, I would be opposing discovery.

All the legalese in the world is useless if it serves only to suppress what “may” be truth.