Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Video?
All of your "objections" refer to this basic circular argument - you say that because Obama was certified as qualified, then he is qualified. In other words, your position is that any challenge to his qualification must take place upon the presumption that the qualification was valid, because - it took place.
But my disagreement is based on the long accepted legal effects of fraud, which is that it vitiates all process. Which means that if the certification of qualification was fraudulent, then the certification was fraudulent, and if the certification was fraudulent then the qualification never legally took place at all.
And while perhaps presumption of legality could force an initial presumption of qualification, and thereby require a tortuous legal process to get "standing" for a challenge requiring legal review (i.e. the whole birth certificate mess), such presumption of legitimacy would not be justified in the case of prima facie evidence of fraud.
And what is the admitted non-American citizenship of Obama's father but prima facie evidence of the impossibility of his having natural-born citizenship?
So given that, I can't see how the certification of his qualification under 3rd/20th could be seen as ever being legitimate, since it is openly, obviously impossible. Thus, the certification of his qualification was falsely affirmed, thus qualification never legally happened.
Given all of this, if you still believe presumption should be given to legitimate qualification, there isn't much else I can say, except that I don't see your escape from the vitiating effects of prima facie fraud - and that it would be nice to see this issue addressed by SCOTUS.
Because in the context of that specific amendment, that is what they meant by "qualified". That amendment was written specifically to address contested elections and problems with the Electoral College, and of course the death of a president-elect. None of those things occurred with Obama - in other words he qualified well before the date of inauguration.
A plain reading of the text clearly reveals that the purpose of the Amendment wasn't to provide an additional vetting step before the the inauguration, but was to address exceptional circumstances - like the ones I've mentioned, and the ones the Amendment specifically addresses. It's as simple as that.
"And what is the admitted non-American citizenship of Obama's father but prima facie evidence of the impossibility of his having natural-born citizenship?"
This issue was raised prior to Inauguration. The Supreme Court didn't find the argument compelling, which is why they denied cert twice, both times without comment.
If fraud was committed by the POTUS while in office, or committed by POTUS to obtain his office, then that is a matter for Congress to investigate and prosecute if so merited. To date, that hasn't happened.
But, it isn't for the Judiciary to decide this issue, for it would violate a number principles in American jurisprudence to include standing, justiciability, the Political Question doctrine and the separation of powers.
If there was no comment, how do you know their thinking? Do you think your telepathic? That's pretty nutty.
That's not nutty. That's a practical understanding of how the Supreme Court works. Go back and look at the myriad of cases that were denied cert when the Vietnam War was challenged on it's Constitutionality. In several instances, dissenting Judges did offer comments - comments that were very sympathetic to the plaintiff's position.
Several of these kinds of cases have been denied certiorari the last year - all without comment. While it's not wholly conclusive, it is persuasive that there's not a single, sympathetic ear on the court regarding this matter.
Unless the justices are simply unsympathetic to compelling arguments.
So I show that you're fibbing, and you respond by moving the goalposts. You claimed that the second oath was done with "no witness, no media, behind closed doors," and I showed that it was done WITH witnesses and WITH media. Audio media in fact, that you can listen to for yourself.
So why now the demand for video? Are you suggesting the audio with the voice of the Chief Justice was faked? That CBS was in on the fakery? Does this mean that LBJ wasn't President from 1963 to 1965, since his ONLY oath after Kennedy's assassination was only photographed and audio-recorded, and not videotaped?
I saw the first flubbed oath. That did not count. A redo was required. The People were not given an opportunity to witness Constitution requirements fulfilled. Some guy said trust me, the oath was taken as prescribed.
Perhaps we can save money on an outdoor inauguration and have two people, behind closed doors, swear an oath to the Constitution. No need for the little people to witness Constitution requirements upheld.
The Dems already dropped the need to attest that their Candidate meets Constitution eligibility requirements. Cheney in Congress “forgot” to ask if anyone had objections, as prescribed, to Candidate elect 0bama. 0bama flubbed his first crack at the oath.
Alone, or in a pair, these might not mean anything. I am not saying everyone is in on a Conspiracy. But everything goes wrong or against prescribed rule when 0bama is involved.
The People need to witness a complete and correct Oath of Office.
These guys were supposed to vet the Candidates! Did they???
Remember, these guys vote on a bill, without reading said bill. The bills are cooked up in back rooms. Do these guys understand the impact of their vote/decision? Do these guys understand what is presented to them?
Trust takes you so far, someone was supposed to verify.
Evidence is not available to the People
End of rant
As an Ombot and blind combatant in support of 0bama, I understand your passion.
With respect to 0bama’s eligibility for POTUS (Birth Certificate), his college grades, his medical records, etc., all records are sealed by 0bama.
Neither of us can support our statements with footnote’s to 0bama’s source documents.
And that’s the real issue.
IMHO, a "plain reading" observes that the text specifies no exceptional circumstances, and therefore, as a plain reading, such cannot be invoked. Therefore what is left for a plain interpretation is a plainly specified "vetting step."
This issue was raised prior to Inauguration. The Supreme Court didn't find the argument compelling, which is why they denied cert twice, both times without comment.
I wasn't aware this particular issue (foreign birth father) was specifically addressed by the denial, but that other issues were folded into the pleading so that the specifics behind the denial were never explained. Even so, since a foreign birth father clearly denies natural born status, if it was "found lacking" by the court that would deny it's very definition. Therefore it is presumable they denied cert on other grounds.
...it isn't for the Judiciary to decide this issue, for it would violate a number principles in American jurisprudence to include standing, justiciability, the Political Question doctrine and the separation of powers.
Depends on whose interpretation of events you regard as valid. I believe the separation of powers was devised precisely to provide (in this case) a mandamus-type of check against this type of "powers-collusion" to ignore Constitutional requirements. When such a mechanism is avoided through the denial of common law process, we get what we have - a blatant disregard for Constitutional requirement, with an entire country refused "standing" in the face of open fraud.
In any event, I think we're clearly squared off on this issue, and we've had our say against each other, so I'm going to forgo any further discussion.
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.