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.
I believe that Pelosi satisfied the necessary Congressional requirement - although this might have been done fraudulently.
I’ve been saying all along that congress should be taken down along with the usurper and Pelosi. Combine that with the Supremes ‘evading’ it and what have you got? Not the nation created by our forefathers, that’s for sure.
Perhaps a mass mailing of this to every congresscritter, even the new kids on the block, would be in order. Someone needs to buck up and do their duty to the US, it’s constitution, and it’s citizens.
That N was another “suspcion” to me....why a do over is the question.
“By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, “How could every single member of Congress… all 535 of them… fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama’s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?” http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-congressional-research-office-agrees/
Remember, it was Cheney who failed to ask for objection or question of the electoral vote as required by the US Code of Federal Regulations. See at the 27 minute mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4&feature=related
I can’t seem to find the US Code of Federal Regulations section number that requires the question. Anyone have it? It should be at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html but the search window won’t pull it up.
A third grader has better penmanship than that.
That N was another “suspcion” to me....why a do over is the question.
Warrants an investigation, don’t you think?
McLame was ineligible from day one and the GOP knew it. The RATS knew it. Everyone knew it - just as they knew Hussein is/was/and always will be ineligible. That's just one more point of proof showing to what lengths the GOP went to to throw the election in order to distance themselves from the economic disaster that was looming.
There is another course. Presidents and VPs are elected on the same ticket. If one party is determined ineligible, then that voids the entire ticket. If the elector submits in ineligible vote, then he wasted it. They, imo, have no other option than to go back to the general election to see what "eligible" ticket recieved the most votes. The ticket recieving the most votes after McCain/Palin was Nader/Gonzales but iirc, Gonzales doesn't meet the NBC (two US citizen parents) requirement. Next down the list was Barr/Root.
Smells like Barr should have standing in an eligibility case.
received!
McLame was ineligible from day one and the GOP knew it. The RATS knew it. Everyone knew it - just as they knew Hussein is/was/and always will be ineligible. That’s just one more point of proof showing to what lengths the GOP went to to throw the election in order to distance themselves from the economic disaster that was looming.
There is another course. Presidents and VPs are elected on the same ticket. If one party is determined ineligible, then that voids the entire ticket. If the elector submits in ineligible vote, then he wasted it. They, imo, have no other option than to go back to the general election to see what “eligible” ticket recieved the most votes. The ticket recieving the most votes after McCain/Palin was Nader/Gonzales but iirc, Gonzales doesn’t meet the NBC (two US citizen parents) requirement. Next down the list was Barr/Root.
Smells like Barr should have standing in an eligibility case.
Except he failed to ask for objections. That was the final rule that wasn't followed. The fix was in.
Except he failed to ask for objections. That was the final rule that wasn’t followed. The fix was in.
Please site the rule.
Please site the rule.
The votes that count under the twelfth amendment are those that come from the votes that are "transmitted and sealed" to the Congress which are votes of the designated electors. No one got "votes" as defined for President except John and Zero.
There is not authority for the proposition that a vote for an ineligible person voids the ballot and I tend to think that the Court would laugh at that argument--it isn't going to come down that way. That argument doesn't make any sense.
As to the "two parent argument", that is just another variation of the Vattel argument which has been eliminated by adoption of the 14th Amendment. I never heard of Gonzales; he didn't get any electoral votes; but if he had; and if he was born in the USA; he wins.
Equating the word “qualified” in the 20th Amendment, with the word “eligible” in Article II, section 1. This is a mistake. jbjd (whose posting privileges were suspended on FR is not able to personally correct the fiction Uncle Sham has posted there, disguised as fact)wrote about this fallacy some time back, in
http://jbjd.org/2010/12/31/qualified-%e2%89%a0-eligible/
I have heard that argument and I do not give it any weight. It is much like the argument in the opinion to the Republican's by the Harvard law professor and the hired lawyer that McCain was eligible.
The Carter opinion was written by a Perkins clerk on leave to work as a clerk for Carter for the purpose of massaging the result in the Carter case which Baer viewed as a real threat. It is just more self serving argument which isn't going to go anywhere in the real world if this ever gets to issue before the Supreme Court.
I do have some knowledge of handwriting , the left one appears to be wrote by a left-handed person. the right one was wrote by a right handed person. I best guess is that the “certification” document was not signed by Pelosi.
as far as the N issue goes , it is common when someone is attempting to write another person’s name to end up with what you call a”do over” . The person should have practiced more to make it not so apparent!!
I admit (and it’s obvious) that I am no lawyer. But after reading some of the valiant research by various freepers including but not limited to bushpilot1, rxsid, Red Steel (and others) it is clear to me that the founders entirely intended Natural Born Citizen to mean someone born on US soil from parents who were citizens.
Why are you so quick to dismiss the two parents?
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.