Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

20th Amendment Sct3: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"
Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution

Posted on 12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST by Kevmo

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.


TOPICS: History; Miscellaneous; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: certifigate; rallyusa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Earthdweller; oblomov

I agree, well said, but I wish I had more hope than that. This huge investment we have all made in a constitutional republic and the judicial branch, with its lifetime appointments to avoid political intrigue, may be going into a bankruptcy of confidence and rule of law.


61 posted on 12/09/2008 12:51:51 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

I don’t like it either, but it is the constitution. And fraud is fraud, so we need to uphold the rule of law.


62 posted on 12/09/2008 12:52:49 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

We need the Constitution for a million other essential reasons in the future. Trashing it now will kill us later. Not just people; it will kill our great Republic.
***That’s what I’ve been saying. We can survive a president Hillary. We cannot survive the deliberate refutation of the constitution by those we entrust to uphold it.


63 posted on 12/09/2008 12:56:30 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I believe Irish men and women are capable of drinking and revolting at the same time (smile).
***Yup, we’re good multitaskers. But then there’s that expression, “God invented Whiskey so the Irish wouldn’t rule the world.” There’s something to that as well. Anyways, thanks for the laughs.


64 posted on 12/09/2008 12:59:11 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

Feelings have replaced the meaning the words the Supreme Law of the Land once conveyed.
***We can work that to our advantage. Street demonstrators saying, “20th Amendment” and the press feverishly looking it up because they never do their homework. Then they’ll hurriedly look for some liberal constitutional scholar that will agree to say that it doesn’t mean what it says. Their method is too slow, too subtle, too much subject to the deer-in-the-headlights look, and they’ll have no choice but to report the news.


65 posted on 12/09/2008 1:02:56 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Obama would get UN rep...”President of the World” in his eyes.
***There’s a scenario that makes a ton of sense. It reads like a political entrigue novel, in just one paragraph.


66 posted on 12/09/2008 1:04:51 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

This entire BO thing ...
reads like a political entrigue novel, in just one LOOOOOONG paragraph.


67 posted on 12/09/2008 3:17:37 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
"It is more that the members of the Court see no credible evidence that Obama's qualification is doubtful".

At the moment - there are more pieces of "credible evidence" that Dalai-Bama does NOT meet the Constitutional qualification..

- Foremost, his refusal to make public an authenticated BIRTH CERTIFICATE -- but instead releases a "Certificate of Live Birth" from a state who made a practice of issuing them upon request... There is no dispute of his live birth - that is obvious - the question remains WHERE.

- Obama has lawyered up and spent a reported $500,000 fighting court action demanding he produce an Authenticated BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

- His Kenyan grandmother FREQUENTLY boasted she attended his birth in Kenya... She has since been unavailable for interviews. The former Kenyan Ambassador also stated it was "common knowledge" of Obama's Kenyan birth. It would be racist to not accept family member or Kenyan Government Official input without some credibility!

- Given the age of his mother, the British Commonwealth citizenship of his "reputed" sperm donor father, Obama's subsequent "citizenship" in Indonesia, etc, etc.... Questions of dual or multiple citizenship and previous passports -- produce more questions than answers about Obama meeting the simple Constitutional requirement of being a Natural Born citizen.

I can perhaps overlook Obama's muddy past, his locking access to all records of his life, college work and involvement with Islam - which he denies. I can even overlook his less that sterling resume and if I try real hard I can overlook his 20+ year history following a black racist Pastor who ALSO had a history with Islam ------ But, I refuse to accept as president a man who is too arrogant to produce a document "Hawaii State Officials" say exist that proves he was born in Hawaii...

Simply SHOW ME THE PAPER... Now really - how hard or damaging could that be if it exists and proves what Obama wants us to believe? Huh?

68 posted on 12/09/2008 4:09:28 PM PST by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005
This is the part I don’t like - Congress picking our President.

“Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

I.E. Congress selecting one who is qualified - Hillary

No. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 would apply. So we would go by the regular Presidential Line of Succession, starting with San Fran Nan. Of course, before anyone could become Acting President, after the VP, would have to resign from any other office that person held before such a person could become Acting President.

69 posted on 12/09/2008 5:21:22 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Oh man, four years of Biden gaffes would be hilarious.


70 posted on 12/09/2008 5:23:20 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

For sure. If president is ineligible to hold office and if Congress is a party to that, the entire federal government is illegitimate and so is Federal Income tax.


71 posted on 12/09/2008 6:22:26 PM PST by ColdDecember (It is not just the BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mhx

No good can possibly come from pursuing it anymore, regardless of the rightness of the cause.

~~~

Unbelievable lack of principles.

Thank God our Founding Fathers were made of sturdier
stuff.


72 posted on 12/09/2008 7:42:34 PM PST by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: river rat

It is apparent that your definition of credible evidence differs from mine, and I strongly suspect that it also differs from what the courts regard as credible evidence. If you have some other reasonable explanation, I’m all ears.


73 posted on 12/09/2008 9:15:14 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
If you're ready to accept Obama on “faith” that he is a natural born citizen - and ignore all the reasons to suspect he is not — your freeper name is well chosen... Now tell the truth....did you vote for Obama?
74 posted on 12/09/2008 9:49:14 PM PST by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Typical ... I don't happen to agree with you on everything the Birthers contend, so I must be an Obama supporter/voter. Grow the hell up. Your 'suspicions' do not rise to the level of evidence that is admissible in court proceedings.

Like I said before, if you have some reasonable explanation for why the SCOTUS failed to give a full hearing to this matter, please post away. But, of course, that would require some actual thought on your part which is a little more difficult than making a cutesy remark about my screenname.

75 posted on 12/10/2008 6:46:38 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Of the remaining Democrats - who has the most power behind them/under their control?

I would say Hillary.

They’re not going to play by the rules. She’d politically manuever past Biden and Pelosi somehow if Obama was disqualified.


76 posted on 12/10/2008 7:32:43 AM PST by rjp2005 (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; LucyT; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...

Thanks Kevmo.


77 posted on 12/11/2008 12:06:20 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, December 6, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
They know this, but after the 2000 ruling in the Presidential election, I don't think they want to touch this with a 10’ pole, regardless of its merit.

Then they would be cowards deciding to hide from an issue that would be their duty to deal with.

Deriliction of Duty should then be pursued.

This is a burning issue that will not go away on it's own. The SC has a duty to directly deal with it and rule one way or another. Ignoring it is not dealing with it directly. If they do not deal with this and real and credible evidence surfaces in the future, all hell will break loose. The SC can and should prevent this.

78 posted on 12/11/2008 9:58:44 AM PST by SteamShovel (Global Warming, the New Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mhx
If the Supreme Court took the case, I can guarantee you they will just ask the state of Hawaii to show them the birth certificate, and then the court will just say “looks good enough to me”, regardless of any other evidence that’s presented. There is no way they are going to believe any of the other evidence more than they will believe a government making an official statement.

Never happened. Obama hasn't authorized the release of his birth certificate OR the Certificate of Live Birth. He has an IMAGE of a Certificate of Live Birth on his website. Here's what the Hawaiian official said:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.
State officials said Saturday they have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

Now what does it say?

1. Does it say that Obama has his birth certificate? Nope. It says the State of Hawaii does.

2. Does it say that Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted on his website came from their office via request? No, it doesn't.

3. Does it say that they have released it to anyone? No, it doesn't.

4. Does it say that Obama was born in Hawaii? No it doesn't. And during the period of time that Obama was born you could register a an adopted child born elsewhere as being Hawaiian and the Certification of Live Birth would state that the birth record is on file in Hawaii. It wouldn't say where he was born. So if Obama was born in Kenya and later adopted by his white grandparents...why then wouldn't he appear to have been born in Hawaii?

5. Does it say they've seen his birth certificate and that he was born in Hawaii? No, they said it's on file. They can't access it because "State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record".

79 posted on 12/11/2008 10:12:48 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Notice that the order of events is spelled out: if the President elect shall have failed to qualify. That means the qualification takes place AFTER the General Public votes, and even AFTER the Electoral College. It also shows explicitly that the ELECTION RESULTS ARE SUBORDINATE TO QUALIFICATION.

Good point. This would seem to indicate that either the legislature or the courts determine qualification.

80 posted on 12/11/2008 10:14:06 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson