Posted on 01/06/2011 2:41:15 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The scheduled reading of the Constitution in the House went off smoothly today, after a few of the usual procedural squabbles and legislative throat-clearing. Most representatives of both parties did a perfectly fine job of reading their assigned bit of the text. Speaker John Boehner got to read the really soaring words at the beginning, and gave an exceptionally powerful performance. At the other extreme, watching disgraced Democrat Charlie Rangel read from the Constitution was like watching atheist comedian Ricky Gervais read the Bible, but not as funny.
The only bump in an otherwise smooth process came when the requirements for presidential eligibility were read, by Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey. Article II, Section 1 states that only a natural-born citizen may be President. This prompted a woman who has been tentatively identified as Teresa Cao to upstage the unfortunate Pallone by screaming “Except Obama!” from the House galley.
Cao is a member of the “Birther” movement, which does not believe Barack Obama meets Article II, Section 1’s requirements. She’s an avid supporter of Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, who was court-martialed and imprisoned last month for refusing to report for duty when his unit was deployed to Afghanistan. Lakin says this is because he challenges Obama’s legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief. He had hoped to use the discovery process of his trial to force the President to unseal his long-form birth certificate. The military judge ruled against his request.
Cao knows her way around the inside of a sandwich board, having been photographed outside the Supreme Court with a “No Proof U.S. Citizenship” sign by the Associated Press, as far back as December 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
You’ve got it exactly right.
In addition, the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments explicitly protect the life of every person, and require that all persons, in all the states, enjoy the equal protection of the laws.
Also, the Eight Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, even for the guilty. The act of aborting a child is the commission of a brutally cruel and unusual murder of the innocent.
The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the individual has God-given unalienable rights whether they are enumerated to anyone’s satisfaction in the Constitution or not.
And the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that all must stay within their lawful powers. There is NEVER any lawful state power to violate God-given, unalienable rights. To say there is is to deny the first principles of our nation’s founding, as found in America’s charter:
“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...”
Funny thing...
The first reference from a Google Define: for "posterity" is a paraphrase of the preamble to the Constitution:
descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"
-PJ
...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I point this out because it was the practice to capitalize all references to God, such as "Him" and "Creator." Following this practice, the gifts of the Creator, namely Rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, are capitalized, too. Furthermore, in the preamble to the Constitution, the word Blessings is also capitalized, which I take to mean from the Creator, and Liberty is also capitalized, which is one of the three rights from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration.
All this, taken together, tells me that the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the Blessings of the unalienable rights that come from the Creator, and not just to us but to our children and their children.
-PJ
Yeah.
Folks forget that when they kill the child they’re not just killing the child. They’re killing an entire blood line. They’re exterminating untold numbers of individual descendents who will never have any opportunity whatsoever to enjoy anything at all, much less the Blessings of Liberty.
Those officers of government who won’t put a stop to it - in any branch, or at any level of government in America - are in breach of their oath of office, the one they swore before God Almighty.
The HDOH has broken the Federal General False Statement Act and most probably also committed misprision of felony.
All to get an ineligible POTUS installed. That’s not peanuts, that goes to the very rule of law.
And Obama’s thugs have threatened to use the powers of agencies in order to punish people who would exercise their Constitutional or lawful rights. Those illegal threats were made to media heads if they reported on the eligibility issue, Chrysler lawyers if they pressed for bankruptcy law to be obeyed, etc. If this is not addressed, the federal government itself will officially be the worst, most powerful mafia in the history of this country, terrorizing the people it’s supposed to serve while disabling all the mechanisms for accountability (such as inspectors general, court cases, law enforcement, etc)
This is not peanuts. The is a battle for the rule of law.
What I hear you saying is that if it is found that the entire government, media, law enforcement, and judicial systems have perpetrated crimes against the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people the American people will grumble that it wasn’t a big enough deal?
If the American public is that stupid we don’t deserve to exist, which is probably OK because in that condition we won’t survive for long. No democratic form of government can survive that level of stupidity on the part of its people. But I think there is a substantial majority of Americans who are disgusted by the lawlessness. I think that’s what the townhall meetings, the outbursts in various places, the 2010 election, the polls, etc are all saying.
People know we’re looking at something even more substantial than a sexual harassment case. We’re talking about the legitimacy of a presidency which has resulted in the takeover of the banks, the auto industry, the student loan industry, and healthcare while at the same time refusing to allow Arizona to protect the border in the face of beheadings, torture, etc on the part of drug cartels that are taking over parts of Arizona AND refusing to enforce laws when the perpetrators are Black AND groping old grandmas while allowing burka-clad folks to inspect themselves.
People know in their guts that something is radically different. They see the lawlessness in spite of government and media efforts to hide what’s going on. They see that the money thrown at unemployment hasn’t helped, most probably because it is a slush fund to pay off the support of union hacks and campaign contributors. They see that Obama meant what he said when he said he wanted %7/gallon gas. They don’t like their dishes coming out of the dishwasher dirty and their beds full of bedbugs because effective products are now banned by the EPA. They see their health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for healthcare going up while the service goes down.
This crap sandwich is far more far-reaching than Clinton trying to force Paula Jones to have sex, or having oral sex with Lewinsky in the Oval Office while making decisions about combat in the ME and then lying and destroying records about all of it.
This crap sandwich threatens to destroy our entire infrastructure and the financial security of millions. This is NOT a tee-hee subject. Jeff Kuhner says the media is afraid to address it because it is so serious that there could be riots over it. Others have said that a conspiracy this large would have such huge ramifications that nobody dare touch it because it is SO profound.
For the American public to be mad at Congress-critters who address this is about like the American public being mad if the federal government tried to find out who committed 9-11 and how.
I guess that’s what I get for a quick cut and paste of text from a secular source.
But your point is well-taken.
The closest I can find id the following.s
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html
A reinvigorated Electoral College would be useful.
What was all the clapping after John Lewis breathlessly read his amendment about slavery? Yeah, we got rid of it a long, long time ago. Time to live in the now, Lewis. Move on dude!!
Is their proof that he was born outside the U.S.?
YAY Teresa! That was the right thing for the moment.
This is incorrect.
The Twentieth amendment, section three REQUIRES that Congress verify that a "President Elect" has not failed to "qualify" or they (Congress) must appoint an interim President. The burden of "qualifying" is placed squarely on the President Elect, thus he must show proof that he meets eligibility requirements to Congress or he is NOT legally able to serve as President.
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.
The amendment seems to assume there is some mechanism for proving qualification but doesn't say what it is. Odd oversight it seems.
The President Elect has to present sufficient evidence to Congress that he meets these requirements or he will not be allowed to serve. A proper birth certificate would surely be evidence of place of birth and legal age as well as the citizenship of both parents. Since the Constitution demands that this be done, was it? If so, we the people have a right to see what evidence was accepted by our representatives in Congress don't we? I don't think it was done. I don't think we have a legal President and if the new Congress doesn't get to the bottom of this soon, I don't think we have a legal government, period.
A conspiracy to prevent a Constitutional crisis?
Maybe.
That is a brilliant observation.
Obama himself admits he isn’t a natural citizen!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded
“Is their proof that he was born outside the U.S.?”
Who knows? Everything in his past that could be hidden has been hidden.
The only definite losers are the cowards who have abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law.
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.