Posted on 01/14/2013 7:58:24 PM PST by Uncle Sham
The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are. It's right there in the Constitution under the 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."
A few notes.
1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.
"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."
2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify".
3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.
4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.
Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.
Tomorrow, January 15th, they get another shot at upholding their oaths of office or committing treason by ignoring the Twentieth Amendment, Section three. Perhaps someone will finally have the courage to do what is right.
Here’s what a google search turned up:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/05/hawaiis-verification-of-president-obamas-birth.php?page=1
From what do either of you base your opinions on, that says the reigning King of Thailand or the current Dauphin of France, are eligible to be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces?
I don't think either of those people were considered to be American citizens at birth. Either way, Obama had a parent (his mother) who was a US Citizen (or are the birthers trying to cast doubt on that, too?!), so these are totally different cases. Furthermore, neither of these people has ever claimed US citizenship, nor lived as a US citizen. Do they have a US passport? Obama does.
It doesn't take a constitutional genius to conclude, therefore, that Barack Obama II is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President.
That raises another set of questions that have been discussed here on FR ever since Obama became a serious candidate for POTUS. For some reason, Obama's passport records have never been publicly released, so we don't know, for example, how he might have obrained such a passport, how he traveled abroad to Pakistan during his college years and how he traveled to Kenya a few years later.
WND should put out a Birther calender to mark all the false hope deadlines.
why is it foolish nonsense?
The “president” of the united states submitted a FAKE birth certificate to the american people. This is clearly shown to be a forged creation, and a bad one, not a copy of any document.
That ALONE should be enough to have everyone asking the same question.
What do you say we should do about the fake document? should we just accept it like good sheeple? what are you doing here then?
Do you think Barry/Obama is a "natural born Citizen" because he was (allegedly) born in HI? Or do you think he is a "natural born Citizen" because his mother passed her citizenship to him?
It’s on my blog, contained inside the letter that Klayman sent to Bob Bauer, posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf Onaka confirmed these things by what he REFUSED to say, as Klayman’s letter explains.
I’m crazy-busy today so just a note here. Palmer, Onaka doesn’t have discretion to pick and choose which of the facts he will verify. If he is truly verifying Honolulu, then he also has to verify Oahu. The statute leaves no room for discretion; they have to provide verification of ANY INFORMATION submitted to be verified. If Honolulu was submitted then so was Oahu, and if Honolulu is truly being verified then the law says Oahu has to be also.
But the syntax in Onaka’s sentence is clear. What he is verifying is the existence of the birth record - which incidentally “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
If I was willing to lie, I could go today and get a birth certificate for me that “indicates” a Hawaii birth. It would be non-valid and wouldn’t mean a thing, but I could get it. All Onaka verified is that Obama or his parents (or actually law enforcement...) did what it takes to get a non-valid record “indicating” a Honolulu birth.
N/A if you are of mixed race and claim birth in Hawaii.
"Native = Natural"
All questions of eligibility are to be settled by the HIDOH.
Turn up Don Ho "Tiny Bubbles in the Wine," and go with the flow.
To do otherwise would be racist. Besides, it is bad for one' s mental health to become upset everytime a gay African Chicago Street Organizer who was asked off the Illinois Bar becomes POTUS.
If we could find just one judge anywhere in America to agree with you.
Six state and federal courts have ruled that Obama IS a natural born citizen:
Tisdale v Obama-US District Court Eastern District of Virginia
Rhodes v MacDonald-US District Court Middle District of Georgia
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto)-US District Court for the District of Columbia
Allen v Obama-Arizona Superior Court for Pima County
Ankeny v Governor Daniels-Indiana Court of Appeals
Farrar-Swensson-Powell & Welden v Obama-Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings & Georgia Fulton County Superior Court.
This is important because judges are prone to follow the precedents established in earlier trials on the exact same issue. There needs to be some decisions to counter-balance these pro-Obama decisions.
being a "Natural Born Citizen" carries with it the additional requirement that both of one's parents are citizens of the US at the time of one's birth
This is not true. This has never been true. This was invented by people twisting various court rulings. The actual court rulings that apply do not have a "two-parent" requirement.
The “president” of the united states submitted a FAKE birth certificate to the american people. This is clearly shown to be a forged creation, and a bad one, not a copy of any document.
According to who? Not the state agency that issued the documents.
so we don't know, for example, how he might have otained such a passportUnless you have some actual evidence to the contrary, I'm comfortable assuming he sent a COLB to the State Department like everyone else -- or did a college-age Obama already have a secret Illuminati cabal backing him?
how he traveled abroad to Pakistan during his college years and how he traveled to Kenya a few years laterI'm guessing that he flew on a plane in both cases.
IIRC, those cases were dismissed, true, but because of a lack of standing of the plaintiff or some other procedural defect. This conveniently enabled those courts to dodge the natural born citizen issue because they didn't have to reach it.
Furthermore, in so far as I recall, the SCOTUS has never in its history had a case where the definition of "natural born citizen" in Article II of the United States Constitution was dispositive. Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen" (and did so in accordance with Vattel) but that case did not concern eligibility for the presidency.
Ankeny: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Tisdale: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
I knew what Ankeny said from reading it before, and just looked up Tisdale. I don't have time to research the others. But that should be enough to show that courts have, in fact, ruled on the NBC issue.
Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen"
They didn't actually "define" the term, except insofar as "there is no doubt that tigers are cats" is the definition of "cat."
Needless to say, no one here is invoking a secret Illuminati cabal to explain that travel. But there is a good possibility that he was traveling then with a foreign passport, and may not have been able to obtain an American one. We'll never know until those passport records are made public. Additionally, his college records, which could possibly shed light on the issue of his citizenship, have been under wraps as well.
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.