Posted on 02/28/2011 11:25:29 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
It’s pretty sad that this all they have.
Yes, it is sad. But they need a distraction. They economy stinks. Unemployment numbers aren’t going down. The Middle East is on fire. They desperately want to talk about something else where they think they are winning.
Give the Site Pest a break. He’s got his hands full trying to be a full time grad student working on a thesis and a full time college prof simultaneously:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2680078%2C176
Besides that, do you think it’s easy keeping all his lies straight? He’s juggling a lot of balls/lies; cut him some slack.
And I am stunned that anyone could be so naive!
You’re obviously unaware that Arizona’s attempt at a “Birther Bill” when down in flames weeks ago!
Sober up and pay attention!
94 Georgia Legislators Back New Georgia Bill That Would Require Presidential Candidates Prove They’re Constitutionally Eligible.
burp....
On the other hand, (recognizing he may be a "she") if he is indeed a college professor, he is in a key position to contaminate young minds eager for knowledge. In light of his writing on these pages over the past few years, he almost certainly is doing just that while at the same time supported in some part by taxpayer monies.
It’s a he, and if he’s a college prof, he’s screwing the kids up royally. All you have to do is look at the immature, cutesy, facts-be-damned way he jerks people around on FR to know he’s a messed up human being. IF he’s a prof, pity the poor students. The few not already ruined by public education are guaranteed to emerge from his classroom in worse shape than when they went in.
Not true. In fact, The Twentieth Amendment, Section three REQUIRES that Congress verify that a President elect meets qualifications for the office of President or they, Congress, must name an interim President. Did Congress do it's job? If so, what evidence did they see to determine that we have a legal President? We the people certainly deserve to know whether or not we have a legal President don't we?
Here's why Congress is who we should be targeting for an answer to this question:
See post 89 and link.
See post 89 and link.
While I appreciate your zeal, I have from the outset disagreed with your analysis and proposed solution.
Let me address the issues as they appear in your latest link.
You refer to the 20th A. and it was, at least at one time, relevant as it refers to if the President elect shall have failed to qualify.
What federal official requested that Obama present his bona fides? Obviously, there was no such request.
Did Obama fail to qualify during the 2009 Joint Session? Clearly he did not fail.
While I am asking, what evidence do you, or any of the rest of us for that matter, have that Obama is or is not “qualified”. (Here, no matter what you and I may think is the proper view, the nation will likely require a USSC decision on the definition of NBC.)
>The answer to the last question puts proper perspective on the enormity of the issue.
So we are presently beyond your Step 3, there was no showing the President elect failed to qualify. On that basis, the failure language of the 20th A. your Step 4 (of 4) is not in play. At this stage it is futile to argue that we do not have a “Constitutional President”.
You next cite 3 USC 19 U. S. Code as it relates to Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President. Applicability of that section is limited to the case of where due to a failure to qualify there is neither a President nor Vice President. Unless something happens to Joe, that statute doesn’t help either.
As I previously argued, we need to back up from your 3 USC 19 to 3 USC 15. That statute, enacted by the Congress itself, expressly sets out the procedure to challenge any aspect of the presidential election. No interpretation or legal argument is required, it is cut and dried.
Congress, however, disregarded its statute. And in this regard, you and I agree, “Congress is Responsible For the Eligibility Fiasco”.
We don't know whether he did or not. The phrase "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" places the burden of qualifying on the President elect. If he wasn't asked to provide proof of eligibility, Congress, especially knowing the questions at the time concerning his legitimacy, failed to enforce section three. This a failure of Congress, not a successful qualification of the President elect.
Interesting reading. But I’ms till waiting for the part that tells me WHO qualifies the President-Elect and HOW they do it.
Your words, my replies:
“Did Congress do it’s job?”
Where does it state that Congress is responsible for certifying the qualifications? It may be implied, but it is not overtly stated.
“If so, what evidence did they see to determine that we have a legal President?
None that I know. But what evidence is required? Who provides it? Who examines it? Leaving aside what’s written, is there any established practice, any precedent? Has Congress, or anyone else, routinely examined the qualifications AFTER the electors cast ballots and BEFORE the term of office begins?
“We the people certainly deserve to know whether or not we have a legal President don’t we?”
I think so. That’s why I think we need a better process.
In order to select the proper procedural tools to resolve the issue effectively, one should recognize that Obama would not be president if he had failed. Failing to qualify and certification as president are inconsistent concepts.
Let me offer an example. Three traveling salesmen need a motel room for the night. So they stop and the crew leader goes to the motel office to get the room. The desk clerk quotes him $30, which the leader pays. He returns to the car and receives a $10 bill from each of the other two.
A few minutes later the clerk realizes he gave them a $25 room. He calls the bellhop (go with it) and tells him to take five, one dollar bills to their room. On the way, the bellhop cleverly determines there is no way the 3 guys can split the five evenly and decides to pocket $2 and return only the balance.
At this point, each salesman is out $9 (10-1). Three times 9 is 27, plus there are 2 bucks in the bellhop’s pocket.
27+2 = 29, where is the other dollar?
It seems to me the more effective argument at this point is that any burden Obama had expired once he was crowned (at least in his view) during the January, 2009 Joint Session. Clearly, up to that point, as a function of the entire election process, he had the burden of providing evidence of his qualification that was of such quality as to satisfy any request of state election officials and, until the conclusion of the Session, members of Congress.
Once crowned, in IMO, the burden of proof and certainly the burden of going forward shifted to the Congress. I say the Congress because IMO that is the only body with authority to now challenge and act on his qualifications. Free of the burden, Obama can now flip off with impunity, and delay his response to, any Congressional request for documentation and attempt to serve out his term.
At least until Congress goes forward. It, of course, has the inherent power and ability to obtain convincing evidence of a non-U.S. birthplace – if such evidence exists. The effect of any USSC opinion of the two-parent NBC requirement that is unfavorable to Obama seems problematic inasmuch as Congress took no action on the public issue in the first instance. Nonetheless, with either in hand, Congress could impeach and convict with little or no response from Obama.
Further, and the most disgusting aspect, it does not appear he has failed to meet any burden he may have once had, simply because there was no request that he do so.
Your thoughts?
What about the Fact that his Father was Not an American Citizen. That alone Makes Him Ineligible
Gee. Everybody knew that to be the case from the day Obama announced for the Presidency.
And not a single person -- no politician, no staffer, no attorney, no contender -- raised an objection. Nobody.
Why do you suppose that is?
Agreed. That is a valid point, at least to the extent that you and I believe that is what the founders/ratifiers intended. Please see my #57 above.
The difficulty with using that to impeach, convict and remove Obama in this term is based on the fact that our Congress, with full knowledge of the fact his father was not a U.S. citizen, sat on their hands and gave Obama a pass on that defect.
In any event, using that as the sole basis for removal would entail Congress recognizing it made a mistake and that it had to change its position. I believe the only way that will happen is in the unlikely event Congress applies to the USSC and it issues a clear opinion on the two parent requirement.
I am not sure that removing Obama on the basis of his being born outside of the U.S. would necessarily inflame the black community, and it even seems an insult to suggest it would. But if he is removed because the Congress changes it mind and decides they are going to enforce the law, I wouldn’t be surprised.
I agree. That's why my suspicions are that we currently do not have a President.
27+2 = 29, where is the other dollar?
They paid a TOTAL of 27, not 30. Of the 27, 25 went to the hotel and the other "2" went to the bellhop.
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.