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

Skip to comments.

Senator: Resolve eligibility in court (LA's Vitter on Barry's eligibility)
wnd.com ^ | 7/12/2010 | WorldNetDaily

Posted on 07/13/2010 10:23:08 AM PDT by rxsid

"Senator: Resolve eligibility in court
'I support organizations' that raise birth challenge

A Republican senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, is suggesting the dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president be resolved in court.

"I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," the Associated Press reported a video of the event revealed him saying.

Vitter becomes just the latest high-profile leader, and the first U.S. senator, to take such a strong stand on the issue.

U.S. Senator supports Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuits (youtube video)

It's also significant that the AP, which has stated publicly that the president's "birth certificate" has been made public even though the image of the document posted online actually is a "certification of live birth," which under Hawaiian procedures was available to those not born in the state, reported on Vitter's comments.

... "

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=178321

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; vitter
Problem is Senator..."nobody" has standing according to the courts who say that you (Congress) should deal with this issue and you (Congress) turn and say this is up to the courts. A whole LOT of finger pointing and heads in the sand!

How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth.
A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 

==============================================================================


 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations for ex.).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

1 posted on 07/13/2010 10:23:09 AM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Fred Nerks; BP2; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
Ping!

"Senator: Resolve eligibility in court (LA's Vitter on Barry's eligibility)"

2 posted on 07/13/2010 10:23:59 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The TRUTH will out! The truth WILL out! The truth will OUT!
This political disaster that is Obama must be nullified.


3 posted on 07/13/2010 10:27:55 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

I disagree with you: I don’t think the truth will win out. I think the American people are too immature to accept the truth.


4 posted on 07/13/2010 10:29:37 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America can survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

novel idea except for the fact that the courts keep throwing the cases out based on no one having standing....


5 posted on 07/13/2010 10:30:30 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla

JD Hayworth should call on McCain to use his standing to bring this issue to resolution.

For that matter, Sarah Palin could also have standing to bring the issue to resolution.

They’re all afraid of how the media would butcher them. Palin should know by now that the media will butcher her regardless of what she does so why not take this on?


6 posted on 07/13/2010 10:37:35 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I wonder how the 2 fine Senators from Arkansas stand on this. :0)


7 posted on 07/13/2010 10:46:28 AM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; rxsid
They’re all afraid of how the media would butcher them. Palin should know by now that the media will butcher her regardless of what she does so why not take this on?

I agree with you. However, challenged or not, 0bagger won't be running in '12 anyway for the reasons I posted you and others before.

That may bring us to Hillary, but that's another story!

8 posted on 07/13/2010 10:58:46 AM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Senator: Resolve eligibility in court (LA's Vitter on Barry's eligibility)

I'd LOVE to give this a big WooHoo but, to date, EVERY single challenge to Barry's eligibility status has been dismissed due to the Plaintiff not "having standing before the court" to bring the action. So, here's the question: If an American citizen lacks the standing in a court of law to bring a fundamental question of Constitutionality, who DOES have the standing?? These cases SHOULD NOT be dismissed by the judges out of hand on the basis of . . . . . ???

This is a fundamental Constitutional issue and the issue deserves being addressed and heard in federal court and ANY American citizen should be eligible to bring the action. If not, what function does the Constitution actually serve (rhetorical question - it doesn't trequire you to respond)??

9 posted on 07/13/2010 11:03:31 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
who DOES have the standing??

"Supposedly," an "injured" person(s) should have standing.

I always thought that a naturalized citizen who's refused a place on the ballots, for obvious reasons, would have standing to sue, demanding ALL candidates "prove" their eligibility beyond doubt to level the playing field and to be treated equally under the law.

10 posted on 07/13/2010 11:15:09 AM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
New info from The Post & Email:

Link

Editor’s Note: Hat tip to Robert Cody Judy for pointing out that Obama signed a notarized Candidate Nomination Paper for Arizona in late 2007 stating that he was a “natural born citizen” and met all of the constitutional qualifications to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Did Obama commit a crime when he signed it? If so, can the officials in Arizona prosecute him? Do they have the fortitude to do so?

11 posted on 07/13/2010 11:43:54 AM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
In the meantime every state should pass a law requiring proof of eligibility (birth certificate) from any candidate seeking to place his name on the ballot. This will make it very difficult, to say the least, for an undocumented Muslim to run for President in 2012.
12 posted on 07/13/2010 12:09:41 PM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; little jeremiah; woofie; LorenC; LucyT; InspectorSmith; theviking711; etraveler13; ...

Excellent thread and post as always.

Vitter seemed to be signalling that starting in January it will be “open season” on Obama’s HI vital records and hopefully also his dual citizen issue.

It will only take one House committee to subpoena Obama’s original HI vital records that for the first time will prove that he has a UK citizen Kenya Colony father.

HI Vital Records will not be able to tell a House committee (or any court for that matter) “We only give out summary COLBs these days.”


13 posted on 07/13/2010 12:36:23 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Welcome back!


14 posted on 07/13/2010 12:47:09 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

yep

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/i-like-the-following-part-the-best-dick-g/


15 posted on 07/13/2010 2:07:53 PM PDT by gunnyg (Surrounded By The Enemy Within--~ Our "Novembers" Are Behind Us...If Ya Can Grok That!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Beckwith; bgill; bitt; butterdezillion; bvw; conservativegramma; Danae; dennisw; ...

NBC Ping


16 posted on 07/13/2010 3:04:39 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet; rxsid
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
17 posted on 07/13/2010 3:17:27 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Vitter becomes just the latest high-profile leader, and the first U.S. senator, to take such a strong stand on the issue”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks to guys & girls like you — that treasure our constitution — more and more “high profile” individuals feel emboldened to point out that “the king hath no clothes!”

Even the MSM is finding it difficult to continue keeping up the charade that they (the MSN) had made ANY honest effort to vet their man before his assumption to the highest office in the land.

STE=Q


18 posted on 07/13/2010 6:04:46 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Great posting. Here's one more piece of the puzzle that makes it CLEAR that it is , within Senator Vitter's responsibilities as a Senator to enforce the Constitution specifically, the Twentieth Amendment, Section three.

Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:

" ”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.

Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19

TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “

Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:

” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:

The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.

The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.

There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.

If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?

If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.

Based upon the above, I conclude that:

1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.

2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.

3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.

19 posted on 07/13/2010 6:47:37 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
" How can a USURPER command our armed forces? How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments? How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity? "

You need to add to your list.....

How can a USURPER legally appoint a Supreme Court Justice ?
20 posted on 07/13/2010 8:15:53 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; LucyT; butterdezillion; rxsid

#19 - nice. keep us in the loop!


21 posted on 07/13/2010 8:19:48 PM PDT by bitt ( "Obama - He’s last year’s boy band." (steyn))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Faith

Whether it’s to late or not, maybe Gov. Brewer can have her AG take a look at that piece of paper Obama signed and investigate it, and have Obama’s records opened up for discovery.


22 posted on 07/13/2010 8:21:17 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; rxsid
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Someone should do a cartoon of a little BO standing next to a sign like this

except substitute "natural born" for "this tall" and "be POTUS" for "ride this ride."

23 posted on 07/13/2010 8:29:41 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “<

Pelosi would not qualify because she would be suspect in being involved in this scam, for she signed that piece of paper for the DNC that qualified Obama to be eligible to be the Democrat Presidential candidate.
Perhaps that is what the Democrats in Congress are worried about.
After November, Pelosi won't be speaker of the house and if Obama resigned, then, a Republican speaker of the house would become president.
24 posted on 07/13/2010 8:30:12 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Defeatist.

That’s not the way to win wars. Plus the evidence shows that more and more Americans are questioning his legitimacy and becoming wise to his crap.


25 posted on 07/13/2010 8:56:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Do you have more information or links about the Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877? I could do a search for it, but if you’ve got links handy that would save some time.

This is exactly what I’ve been conversing about over at http://court-martial-ucmj.com/ltc-lakin/comment-page-1/ . Any historical references we have would be tremendously helpful.


26 posted on 07/13/2010 9:00:53 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Good point. Thanks for the suggestion. It will be added for the next version.


27 posted on 07/14/2010 12:15:57 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Cheers to a spot on post. You’ve laid out all the arguments in plain English that even an after birther could understand.


28 posted on 07/14/2010 6:04:51 AM PDT by bgill (how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
"Supposedly," an "injured" person(s) should have standing.

And, are not the majority of Americans "injured" by a "president" who refuses to verify if he meets the minimum qualifications to be president in accordance with the Constitution? If we are a nation of laws and not men, why is it that the men who have challenged his eligibility are being dissed by the courts whose job it is to enforce or interpret the law?

Again, this is a fundamental Constitutional issue and, IMO, ANY American citizen should have the right to challenge him on Constitutional grounds.

29 posted on 07/14/2010 6:09:29 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I hear there was some speculation of a TV reality court show aimed specifically at digging through all the vague past of Barack Obama.

Apparently there seems to be a good supply of viewers wanting to know who is sitting in the Whitehouse illegally, how he stole the primaries, how he was shoved from behind and skipped the election qualification processes.

But most importantly is that a series like this will have a good long seasonal run and should give viewers many years worth of re-runs.

Now some of you know me, and most think this is satire or that I’m high on something, but you what? Tell me it won’t be talked about as a serious consideration of drawing America to the screen and also selling advertising time?

It will happen, mark my words. I am betting there is a casting call going out right now for a judge, a bailiff with a particular style and a cast.


30 posted on 07/14/2010 6:26:50 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
And, are not the majority of Americans "injured" by a "president" who refuses to verify if he meets the minimum qualifications to be president in accordance with the Constitution? If we are a nation of laws and not men, why is it that the men who have challenged his eligibility are being dissed by the courts whose job it is to enforce or interpret the law?

I agree with you completely. I believe that the communist regime is showing its teeth. It's using the Chicago thuggery to scare anybody who seriously challenges them. That must include judges who must have been told something like... you will be responsible for riots and civil disorder, etc.

The country of law and order is held hostage by the threat of minority rioting and destroying our peace and tranquility.

I tried to go around the ridiculous excuse of "standing." I read somewhere, maybe on FR, that an election result is not considered collectively injurious to the populace. Therefore, I thought I found a way to prove that a candidate is injured and the court should rectify it under equal protection under the law.

I'm afraid that we've to jump hoops to stop the communists from shredding the constitution and do what they please.

Come November, if we take at least the House, we should start defunding all 0b0z0's passed bills, investigating all what this Administration did, including but not limited to, the appointed Communist Czars, etc.

31 posted on 07/14/2010 6:54:28 AM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Here's a link.

Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877

32 posted on 07/15/2010 5:39:30 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Here is another bit of info you might like to see in regards to the federal position on the eligibility matter and who they, the feds, claim have “standing” to question the eligibility of a President elect.

Basically, they make my case.

Link to Article About Federal Position on Eligibility Standing

a quote from the argument:

"The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office," said a brief filed by government lawyers in a California lawsuit over Obama's eligibility under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the White House.

That's because, the brief states, "the examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress."

It is precisely the twentieth amendment, section three that they are talking about in pertinence to Congress review of eligibility.

Here is the Free Republic Discussion on this subject.

Free Republic Posting and Discussion of Federal Position on Eligibility Standing

I hope this is helpful.

33 posted on 07/15/2010 5:54:14 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Neighbor,

I would be much obliged if you would remove me from this ping list, and any others I might be on-

Amongst all this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2536395/posts
Backhoe has lost his best friend and wife of 26 years. (Prayer and support thread)

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=132035
Miss Emily has died

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=132803
“Letters to Miss Emily...”

I just can’t work up any interest in the things I used to follow.

Thank you,
The former HEG


34 posted on 07/16/2010 2:46:25 AM PDT by backhoe (Just an Old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the trakball into the Twilight...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

the sad fact is that no one is bringing Obama’s eligibility to court, not even this Senator, in the only possible way:

Sue the State of Hawaii for issuing false or inaccurate Certficates. Sue the Governor of Hawaii for making false public statements. This would be a criminal action, not a civil one, and everyone has standing.

Nobody is doing this.

Flooding the courts with pretextual cases is an enormous waste of time.


35 posted on 07/16/2010 1:58:03 PM PDT by Mik Taerg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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