Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand

If I remember my 3rd grade civics classes correctly, and I know I do, the Constitution is the law of the land and supersedes any laws where there is a conflict.

To say “that’s not how it works” is ridiculous - show me where in the Constitution an Article exists that states any person can hold office of POTUS without pre-conditions. If that was the case there would be no need to include provisions to remove a person who does not qualify.

The very opposite of that is the case. The qualifications to be elected POTUSA are clearly defined as are the provisions t be taken if a person fails to do so.

We see judges fail to follow the Constitution, that it happens does not mean the judge is correct, what it does mean is that they are not following the very document they take an oath to uphold.


147 posted on 08/29/2009 6:23:17 AM PDT by Brytani (DC Freeper Convention and National Tea Party - FreepMail Me for rooms and convention info!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: Brytani
"To say “that’s not how it works” is ridiculous - show me where in the Constitution an Article exists that states any person can hold office of POTUS without pre-conditions. If that was the case there would be no need to include provisions to remove a person who does not qualify."

First, I apologize for the delay in my answer, somehow I missed your post.

When I say, "That's how it works", I'm speaking about our adversarial system of justice, and specifically the burden of proof as it pertains to that system. When you file a civil action, you - as the plaintiff - have what's known in law as onus probandi, or the burden of proof. It's your responsibility to prove what you're alleging in your action - that you are entitled to remedy or relief from the court. It is not the defendants burden to prove that your allegation is wrong. The defendant enjoys what is known as the benefit of assumption.

To put it as simply as I can, if this Obama eligibility case were ever to be heard on the merits, Obama would begin with the presumption that he is eligible to be president. It's entirely up to the plaintiff to prove that he isn't.

I understand your frustration. Obama, in your opinion I presume, doesn't qualify to hold the office. You want some relief, or justice. The problem is the courts don't distribute justice, they settle arguments based on the application of US law, nothing more. In this instance, most of the law and rules of trial heavily favor Obama.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one we have. Sometimes, it falls short.

363 posted on 08/29/2009 5:28:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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