Posted on 02/12/2011 8:34:33 AM PST by Uncle Sham
It seems that we might have been directing our efforts to determine whether or not this nation has a legally serving President at the wrong target. Congress should not be left out of the debate as though they where not in some way involved in answering this question. They are very much involved and deserve our scrutiny. Congress is COMMANDED by the U.S. Constitution to verify eligibility of a President-elect or name a replacement. Here is the case.
First off, what is a “President elect” in the full legal sense of the description? Since we are talking about the Constitution, we must assume that the term is referred to ONLY in its legal sense. The identity of a "President elect" is not established at election time, nor is it established after the Electoral College cast their votes. It is only established once Congress has ratified the Electoral College votes as legal and binding.
Winning the election in November is just step one of a four-step process. Step two is the Electoral College. Step three is Congressional review and ratification of those results which finally establishes just who the President elect is. Step four is section three of the Twentieth amendment. Miss any one of these four steps and there is no LEGAL Constitutional President. Like perhaps, now.
Twentieth Amendment, Section three:
”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.”
Note the time indicated in the initial passage. It clearly refers to that period AFTER Congress has ratified the Electoral College results because the beginning of a term of office can only occur once there is someone to "begin" that term. Not only this, but Congress ratifies the Electoral College on January 15th. The beginning of a Presidential term is January 20th which is after the Electoral College ratification process is completed.
In addition to the Constitution, here is U.S. law...
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.“
Once again, from the 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.”
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three of the Twentieth amendment 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.”
Section three of the Twentieth amendment comes in to play as the LAST step in a process to ensure that a President is in fact legal. To satisfy meeting the requirement of the Twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a President elect must present evidence that he meets its 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 someone does not have a birth certificate as the governor of Hawaii has stated, how was this proof of eligibility established? 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 cannot be serving as a legal president of the United States of America. Remember, the Constitution says in Article two, section one that "NO PERSON" who does not meet the eligibility requirements may serve as President. There is no wiggle room in this language.
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 section three of the Twentieth amendment), 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. The 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. Perhaps this issue would get addressed sooner if we started 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. This includes our brand new supposedly "Constitution loving" Tea Party" representatives.
Wasn’t Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, when Obama declared his candidacy? I wonder what happened? /s
( I am very discouraged about the future of our nation. This is really about the fundamental moral character of our nation. It is bigger than just Obama. )
The only way it will be dealt with is in the states.
It only takes a state or two to refuse a candidate on the ballot for lack of proof to end their campaign right there.
Listeners and readers infer.
Speakers and writers imply.
The Congress of the United States does not have a great record of following the Constitution of the United States. Especially over the past 50 years or so.
I agree with you 100%. I don’t understand the process the states must follow. They can make a law but can Obambo declare it void by Presidential Order? Can it be appealled by the President or any Federal officials? If so, does the law take effect while waiting appeal? How long does it take to get these laws passed and enacted? Just a few questions thatyou and other Freepers can help me with. I live in a Blue state and nobody would lift a finger to discuss Obambo.
One way you can assist if you or someone you know can help the effort in filing election fraud complaints.
“More than these 6 (six) states are applicable for citizen complaints of election fraud. For example, we already know that MO and AL are applicable states. For some reason, no citizens from either of those states have come forward to initiate the process to generate a complaint.”
http://jbjd.org/2011/01/29/aloha-obama-and-shalom/
Pretty clear, isn’t it?
[3. Perhaps this issue would get addressed sooner if we started 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.]
Amen to that.
Does the phrase “No controlling legal authority” ring any bells?
Unless such a law is structured to disqualify other candidates as well.
Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
We the People have a Military sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States, It’s time for them to step in and restore the constitution. They will need to dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court and start over. Both have proven that they no longer support the People and the Constitution by supporting a ineligible person in the white House.
Nancy Pelosi basically perjured herself by sending a nomination certificate to the State of HI Elections Supervisor which stated that Obama was eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States. She then sent a different letter to the other 49 states leaving out the wording about under the Constitution of the United States. I guess she only wanted to commit perjury once.
The reason Pelosi did this was because the Democratic party of HI had refused to put Obama on the ballot due to ineligiblity and it was creating quite a problem in Oct of 2008. In HI the nomination certificate has to specifically state that the candidate is eligible under “the Constitution of the United States”. Democratic party in HI refused to issue that wording. Due to a loophole in HI election law if there are competing opinions of a candidate’s eligibility the HI Superivsor of Elections is allowed to make a determination of whether the candidate is eligible so when Nancy Pelosi sent in her nomination certificate stating that Barry was eligible the HI Supervisor of Elections was free to put him on the ballot.
And that my children is how the Grinch stole the Whitehouse.
Inertia, however, is the only way a government can survive. Even if you found Obama’s vault certificate listing natural birth in Kenya, his Indonesia passport listing him as a natural citizen of that nation, Occidental College registration listing him as a foreign student, I doubt that congress would decertify him as president, nor would the senate convict and remove him from office to make Biden president. And congressional changes to require the vault form of the birth certificate before they certify the electoral college results aren't going to happen, because of the gordian knot that would be created by having a prior unconstitutionally serving president and the legal peril that would be put in every law, budget and action by him.
The mistake was made, but with the economy on life support, the fed printing money faster than Hasbro can print Monopoly dollars, the bungling of Egypt as well as almost all other foreign affairs, the question has to become: How do we prevent the GOP from nominating anyone who would make this fool look competent to serve a second term? And that, really, is where our attention should be directed.
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.