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

Skip to comments.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT IN BARNETT, KEYES ET AL V OBAMA ET AL
scribd ^ | 6/20/2011 | Orly Taitz

Posted on 06/20/2011 12:56:33 PM PDT by Elderberry

On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.

This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:

a. In the United States of America presidential elections are conducted by individual states, through state ballots and the states are the ones vetting eligibility of different candidates to be on respective state ballots. Presidential candidate has to be a Natural born citizen based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution.

Legitimacy of the state ballot and state elections is a right and a function guaranteed to the individual states based on the 10th amendment, as it is not one of enumerated powers reserved for the Federal government. No decision by Congress, no ratification by Congress can usurp such powers.

b. Plaintiffs are stating, that 2008 election was not legitimate, as Mr. Obama is not a Natural born citizen, being a child of a foreign national and not having any valid US vital records. Recent disclosure of Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate shows it to be a forgery, CT Social Security number 042-68-xxxx, that he is using, was never assigned to him and there is evidence of fraud and/or forgery in his Selective Service certificate and his educational records.

The Plaintiffs were denied standing and the case was dismissed. Current decision by Bond v United States gives the Plaintiffs standing to proceed. In an unanimous decision the court stated “The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of Federalism. See New York, supra, at 181.

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Local News
KEYWORDS: barnet; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; hopespringseternal; naturalborncitizen; obama; taitz; thistimeforsure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

1 posted on 06/20/2011 12:56:45 PM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

piece of cake

all the Pres has to do is produce his newly released birf certificate for the court, the one that clearly shows he was birthed in Hawaii, as certified by doctor and state official U. K. Lele

end of case


2 posted on 06/20/2011 12:59:56 PM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Stop teasing me!


3 posted on 06/20/2011 1:01:19 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Well, you missed a certain element about it being examined by a document expert. And the claim that that document is a forgery...and that the people have a right to examine the original.


4 posted on 06/20/2011 1:05:22 PM PDT by RowdyFFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Well, if the pirate Roberts’ court has decided to grant standing and thus discovery will proceed, albeit slowly, then the globalist have decided to toss barry the bastard under the bus. The next few weeks should be fast and furious changes, like Biden resigning for medical reasons, then Hillary appointed as VP, then Barry resigning to give the Rodhamster time to run her wheel seeking ‘election as an incumbent’.


5 posted on 06/20/2011 1:06:42 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Red Steel; Vendome; mojitojoe

Kerping


6 posted on 06/20/2011 1:17:15 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith; RaceBannon

kerping


7 posted on 06/20/2011 1:18:42 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Don’t get excited everyone. In mere seconds the post will be filled with those telling us what a waste of time and a distraction and how we can’t win with this issue and....

And the whole concept of right and wrong, legal and constitutional issues will again be ignored because the anti-birther brigade will ‘not’ be ignored.....


8 posted on 06/20/2011 1:22:56 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

You mean the BC that clearly identifies a non-citizen as his father, thereby proving obastard is not a “natural born” citizen?

Yeah, it won’t go anywhere, but that’s because nobody in authority has the guts to open that can of worms. However, the law and facts (as shown by obastard himself) are clear: he’s not eligible.


9 posted on 06/20/2011 1:42:44 PM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
" Don’t get excited everyone. In mere seconds the post will be filled with those telling us what a waste of time and a distraction and how we can’t win with this issue and.... "

Norm ? what makes this case different is that it is the Supreme Court making this decision allowing discovery.
Is not ? the Supreme Court in a indirect way saying that , yes, Obama is not eligible, but, the states need to take care of this, not the Supreme Court ?....

There you go OBots and Obama supporters, the US Supreme Court in this case has said that we do have the right and legal standing to question Obama's eligibility to be president.
Now only ? if the proper legal authorities were to take a 2nd look and investigate Obama's records.
10 posted on 06/20/2011 1:44:53 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
...give the Rodhamster time to run her wheel seeking ‘election as an incumbent’.

she's 'on the record' as sayin she'll not seek the Presidency....it's time for Biden, or Edwards or Kerry to get another chance.

11 posted on 06/20/2011 1:48:45 PM PDT by 1234 ("1984")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry; MHGinTN; Norm Lenhart; American Constitutionalist
H-m-m-m.

. . . ..a true and correct copy of the above was served on the:

US Commission of Civil Rights

United Nations High Commissioner ffor Human Rights, Geneva

International Criminal Bar, The Hague

Regional Office - Americas, Montreal

Laura Vericat Figarela, Barcelona

and the United Nations Commissioner for Civil Rights Defenders, tel. +41 22 917 91 51

Why serve copies to the foreign agencies?

12 posted on 06/20/2011 2:05:59 PM PDT by skeptoid (The road to serfdom is being paved by RINOs, and Lisa Murkowski is their mascot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

State attorneys general need to open a can of whupass on the bastard. If five or six would do it for the fraud perpetrated on those states, the sonofabitch would have to resign or be indicted.


13 posted on 06/20/2011 2:07:39 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Is not ? the Supreme Court in a indirect way saying that , yes, Obama is not eligible, but, the states need to take care of this, not the Supreme Court ?....

I like Orly, but I think she is wrong here. The Presidential election is one held by an Electoral College. The States do not even have to hold elections to determine whom they "send" to the Electoral College, and the people they "send" are Constitutionally free to vote for whomever they want to. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution clearly envisions that the Electoral Collage might choose someone who is not eligible. Eligibility is clearly the responsibility of Congress, not the States, and Congress abdicated.

ML/NJ

14 posted on 06/20/2011 2:09:44 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

State laws assign the majority vote to electors do they not? There may be a couple states that don’t but I believe that’s the case for most or am I mistaken? Serious question, not being a twit.


15 posted on 06/20/2011 2:14:47 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid

Likely answer is that if proven ineligible, he’s guilty of a number of international laws as well, including war crimes.


16 posted on 06/20/2011 2:20:14 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

yes but the electorate are not required to cast their vote for anyone.


17 posted on 06/20/2011 2:25:31 PM PDT by dirtymac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk; David; WhizCodger

Ping soliciting legal comment on Orly Taitz’s latest effort:

“On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.

“This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:...”


18 posted on 06/20/2011 2:36:42 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; STARWISE

ping


19 posted on 06/20/2011 2:38:20 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Bump read.


20 posted on 06/20/2011 2:46:44 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
State laws assign the majority vote to electors do they not?

The States can make any sorts of laws they wish to make concerning the persons they choose for the Electoral College so long as such laws are not in conflict with the Constitution. Here's what the Constitution says:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Obviously, now this whole process has become a pro forma affair where the States hold elections for entire slates of elector whose names have been submitted by the political parties; and some State laws require that the electors so chosen must vote for candidate of the party that placed their name on the ballot. (When I was a kid in NY, the names of these elector nominees were there on the ballot. Here in NJ now our ballots just say "Electors for Jones.") The States could have their own laws that the candidates the electors are pledged to are Constitutionally eligible to be President. I believe NJ has such laws, which shows just how much good they do. (One of the minor party candidates here last time was born in Nicaragua. I think, and our glorious Secretary of State did nothing about this.) But none of these State laws has any application in a Federal Court so far as I know.

Serious question, not being a twit.

No need to apologize. No question is stupid the first time it is asked.

ML/NJ

21 posted on 06/20/2011 2:50:27 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: charlene4

Ping! :)


22 posted on 06/20/2011 3:06:11 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Did you even read it?


23 posted on 06/20/2011 3:26:59 PM PDT by CommieCutter (Promote Liberal Extinction: Support gay marriage and abortion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Thanks! My very first PING!


24 posted on 06/20/2011 4:55:25 PM PDT by charlene4 ("The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: charlene4

The friggin Libs better not get any of the South and Southwest! I want to retire there or if SHTF = Puerto Vallarta ,MX At least in MX you know about Gov corruption!
PV is very safe and affordable.


25 posted on 06/20/2011 4:57:59 PM PDT by charlene4 ("The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: charlene4

The friggin Libs better not get any of the South and Southwest! I want to retire there or if SHTF = Puerto Vallarta ,MX At least in MX you know about Gov corruption!
PV is very safe and affordable.


26 posted on 06/20/2011 4:58:25 PM PDT by charlene4 ("The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Norm Lenhart wrote: “In mere seconds the post will be filled with those telling us what a waste of time and a distraction and how we can’t win with this issue and....”

And we bat 1000 on that.

Really, at this point, have people not learned to question Orly Taitz’ legal theories? A glance at the decision she’s citing shows that it is utterly irrelevant to Barnett v. Obama. Carol Anne Bond has standing for a 10’th Amendment challenge to a federal statute because Bond herself is being prosecuted under that statute, plus there’s no question that a verdict favorable to Bond would provide remedy.


27 posted on 06/20/2011 8:24:50 PM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: piytar

piytar queried: “You mean the BC that clearly identifies a non-citizen as his father, thereby proving obastard is not a “natural born” citizen?”

You’ve been had. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.


28 posted on 06/20/2011 8:30:19 PM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan

Black’s Law Dictionary was first published in 1861. That means it doesn’t inform what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant when the Constitution was ratified.

The proper resource is Vittles Law of Nations. That was the authority on the meaning of legal terms at the relevant time, and it defines two requirements for “natural born”: born in the nation and born of citizens.

So YOU’VE been had. Or you are being deceitful. Dunno which...


29 posted on 06/20/2011 9:58:54 PM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan; darkwing104

Darkwing, check this guy “BladeBryan’s” posting history. He exists ONLY to quash challenges to obastard’s eligibility. Not making any comment on whether or not obastard is an NBC, and frankly think it CAN’T go anywhere at this stage, but does someone who only posts to defend obastard belong here?

Can I get me some kitties?


30 posted on 06/20/2011 10:09:40 PM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan

Black’s is a dictionary. It is not law.


31 posted on 06/21/2011 3:10:45 AM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry; butterdezillion; STARWISE; rxsid; Brown Deer; David; RobinMasters; Fred Nerks; ...
This looks like a good approach.

Based on the recent SCOTUS opinion, individuals have standing wherever a State would have standing.

32 posted on 06/21/2011 5:36:09 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Thanks for the ping.


33 posted on 06/21/2011 5:54:54 AM PDT by freebird5850 (Of course Obama loves his country...it's just that Sarah Palin loves mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan
You’ve been had. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.

All that proves is that Black's law Dictionary is wrong. :) "Natural Born Citizen" is a term of art in the context of Article II, and it most certainly does NOT mean what you're Black's definition says, and that is easy to prove. Neither Indians nor Slaves gained any sort of citizenship by being "born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

Legal Jargon is fine, but when it conflicts with actual facts, it needs to be slapped down hard because it is misleading.

34 posted on 06/21/2011 6:18:24 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: piytar
The proper resource is Vittles Law of Nations. That was the authority on the meaning of legal terms at the relevant time, and it defines two requirements for “natural born”: born in the nation and born of citizens.

So YOU’VE been had. Or you are being deceitful. Dunno which...

I keep pointing out to people that Slaves and Indians were not considered citizens (till after the 14th Amendment, and THAT only applied to former slaves.) even though they were "Born within the jurisdiction of a national government", so obviously their definition is not functional. In any case, article II is about allegiance, and that can only be imparted by loyal parents, not dirt.

35 posted on 06/21/2011 6:24:42 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Congress isn’t given authority in the Presidential election. Since the authority to determine eligibility is not given specifically to any other body and, as you mentioned, the Constitution envisions that a President elect could make it past both the states and Congress even though being ineligible, the ultimate responsibility falls to the Supreme Court. They’ve evaded that responsibility by claiming they haven’t had any “cases” before them to decide, since nobody has standing to bring a case.

But a state does have standing to determine eligibility; it is supposedly happening all the time, since Secretaries of State in some states are specifically required to only include candidates who are eligible for the positions they seek. IIRC, California is one state where the SOS has previously kept somebody off the ballot because they were not Constitutionally eligible, so I would think because of that precedent and equal protection/due process, citizens would have a valid legal reason to say that eligibility must be determined for ALL candidates.

The point that could be problematic here, from a preliminary glance and a very non-expert eye, is the lack of a federal action that usurps states’ rights. The feds haven’t done anything on this issue. And state officials have refused to do anything on it either.


36 posted on 06/21/2011 6:44:29 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Or he he can show:

The one he found among his mother’s belongings upon her passing in 1995.

The one he used to get an American Passport.

The one his mother used to place into the school system.

The one he presented to get his law license, marriage license, etc.

He has at least three or four.


37 posted on 06/21/2011 6:57:18 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Congress isn’t given authority in the Presidential election. Since the authority to determine eligibility is not given specifically to any other body and, as you mentioned, the Constitution envisions that a President elect could make it past both the states and Congress even though being ineligible, the ultimate responsibility falls to the Supreme Court...

Sounds correct; hope a legal 'eagle/beagle' will also weigh in on this.

38 posted on 06/21/2011 7:35:50 AM PDT by 1234 ("1984")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Congress isn’t given authority in the Presidential election.

I think you are wrong. The 12th Amendment states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President
The 20th Amendment says:
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.
And Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 says:
[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I supposed I could quote the impeachment sections too. There really is no role for the Supreme Court except to decide controversies where the meaning of laws passed by the Congress and of the Constitution are in dispute. I know many have been brainwashed into thinking that the Court legitimately can decide anything it wants to decide but that clearly wasn't what the Framers had in mind.

ML/NJ

39 posted on 06/21/2011 7:36:55 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: piytar
The proper resource is Vittles Law of Nations.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Barack Husein Obama...Mmm...mmm...mmm...

40 posted on 06/21/2011 8:28:06 AM PDT by frogjerk (Liberalism: The ideology of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Anything filed with the “9th Circus” is bound to be loony by definition. Look at the past wacky rulings that have come from there.


41 posted on 06/21/2011 8:32:44 AM PDT by hoagy62 (Help stamp out crack-pull up your pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; piytar

It appears, from the n00b poster’s posting history, that to mislead/knit chaos is the poster’s intent. When a poster slaps a fellow freeper with a clearly erroneous definition (Black’s definition cannot be the most accurate, for the reason you so clearly identified), you know you’re dealing with a dissembler.


42 posted on 06/21/2011 8:33:52 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

seriously is the a Dr. Ukelele in Hawaii?


43 posted on 06/21/2011 8:38:10 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Ah, but does he have a legitimate one which makes his nativity fit NBC status? There is the ‘embarrassing’ snag. At least one corrupt judge has allowed him to use the 'embarrassing' aspect as an excuse to hide from revealing the truth. And a couple of others seem to have dodged the truth via other applications of --if this court ruling is applied-- 'lack of standing to challenge eligibility of a candidate for the presidency'. So now we wait to see how much squirming happens and which judges will continue in their corruption.
44 posted on 06/21/2011 8:39:56 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

check the sig block on the pres recebntly released “long form” birf certificate

yep, U. K. L. Lee


45 posted on 06/21/2011 9:13:27 AM PDT by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
It looks more like "Vick Lee" to me. The same name can be seen on another birth certificate from the time.
46 posted on 06/21/2011 9:22:36 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

LOL ooops. Of course I meant Vattel. LOL again...


47 posted on 06/21/2011 9:45:55 AM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Congress can make a law regarding how a President shall be chosen if both the VP and President Elect are not qualified. And Congress can count the electoral votes. Both those things are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But I don’t see anywhere in there that it gives Congress the authority to determine whether any specific President-elect HAS “failed to qualify”. It doesn’t give that job specifically to anybody.

And to even BE the “President elect” the candidate had to have had the electoral votes counted and met the necessary number of electoral votes. So the 20th Amendment in effect says that if a candidate made it through the entire Constitutional process (states’ electoral votes and the counting of such by Congress) and has STILL “failed to qualify”, then the VP elect shall “act as President” until a President shall have qualified. IOW, the provisions of the 20th Amendment are for those cases when somebody has made it through the entire process and has still “failed to qualify”.

It doesn’t specifically say who is to determine whether the “President elect” (who was already declared by Congress to be the electoral winner) has “failed to qualify”.

The judiciary is specifically given the duty of deciding all “controversies” arising out of the Constitution or the laws. That means if the Constitution doesn’t specifically say who is to determine/judge the issues of fact or law in cases involving the Constitution and a controversy arises over that issue, it is the judiciary’s job to decide the matter.

And that is the case with Presidential eligibility. The Constitution doesn’t specifically give the job of determining Presidential eligibility to any branch of government or any specific body. It would definitely be outside the expertise and authority of any other body to decide what the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” means. That is definitely an issue for the judiciary, since it involves INTERPRETING the language of the Constitution.

And SCOTUS has never decided that eligibility is outside their jurisdiction (as if it were a “political question” because the Constitution had delegated the duty to another branch of government). Instead, they have evaded their responsibility by claiming that there WERE NO “controversies” because none of the cases that came before them were worth their time.

The lower courts claimed there were no “cases” because nobody who brought a case had “standing”.

So the problem we’ve had stems around the refusal of SCOTUS to acknowledge that there is a “controversy” being brought before them.


48 posted on 06/21/2011 10:03:47 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
But I don’t see anywhere in there that it gives Congress the authority to determine whether any specific President-elect HAS “failed to qualify”. It doesn’t give that job specifically to anybody.

The "necessary and proper" clause gives it to Congress.

(I would also point out that the counter of the votes usually gets to exclude votes improperly cast, but I do acknowledge that this would have to happen before someone ineligible becomes President-elect.)

We have come to a very dangerous situation in this country when even patriots think it is more proper that some unelected group of old people should decide matters like this rather than a larger body of men elected by, and answerable to, the people.

ML/NJ

49 posted on 06/21/2011 10:22:28 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“All that proves is that Black’s law Dictionary is wrong.All that proves is that Black’s law Dictionary is wrong.”

Let me guess: You did not say one word about Blacks having it wrong until you needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when then don’t like who is winning.

“Legal Jargon is fine, but when it conflicts with actual facts, it needs to be slapped down hard because it is misleading.”

That’s not what you did. None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle.


50 posted on 06/21/2011 10:35:25 AM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 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