Free Republic

"The title is used for the apparent winner"

The Twentieth Amendment, section three applies to the ACTUALwinner.

The term "President-Elect" in the Twentieth Amendment, section three refers to the ACTUAL winner which is only in existence AFTER the election has been declared final by Congress.

Words matter. "Apparent" does not equal "Actual".

"Readers can choose to believe that every single member of Congress was under some kind of gag order or threat of blackmail from a person who hadn’t even been sworn in yet or they can believe that the 20th Amendment is looking to provide an orderly transition of government under the circumstance where no one receives a majority of the electoral votes."

They can believe their own eyes in reading the Twentieth Amendment, section three which is actually IN the Constitution, or they can believe Nero Germanicus posting Obama's side of the issue. Credibility is a problem for those who distort, mislead, and lie constantly.

”I come down on the side which says that a president-elect can fail to qualify by winning the popular vote but not getting 270 Electoral votes

Popular votes mean nothing. If you don’t get enough electoral votes, you are NOT anything, much less a “President-elect”. A “President-elect” doesn’t exist without the election being declared final by Congressional acceptance and ratification of the results of the Electoral College. It is only at this time that we know exactly ”who” has been declared the winner and is thus “President-elect”.

”or they can believe that the 20th Amendment is looking to provide an orderly transition of government under the circumstance where no one receives a majority of the electoral votes.”

This “no one receives a majority of the electoral votes” is covered by the passage from the Twentieth Amendment, section three:

”If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term”

Then, there is still another stipulation which is entirely different because the word “or” is used in between the first condition and the second condition which reads:

”, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify"

Later, in describing who shall be “appointed” as President by Congress, the term and condition “shall have qualified” applies in each circumstance. Anyone “appointed” by Congress could very well be someone who was not running for the office and thus had ZERO Electoral College votes, yet they still have to “qualify”. This is more proof that the term “shall have qualified” has nothing to do with the election results. The only thing left is the "eligibility" requirements from Article Two.

Try your deception somewhere else.

None of that refutes the necessity of having to qualify. The actual words...”or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify” are written into section three. You have yet to put forth anything that erases this passage.

"I find it very hard to believe that you really, truly believe that if there really was a constitutional requirement that a president-elect qualify with Congress that not one out of 535 members would raise the issue"

With death threats, blackmail, or who knows what else, anything is possible with Congress and the courts. None of them truthfully respond to the birth certificate issue. None of them. They will ALL be held accountable and will ALL suffer the consequences of the treason they have committed against the very people they supposedly represent. The clock is ticking on those who have perpetrated this fraud and there will be no mercy for anyone involved in this betrayal.

So what?

None of what you posted has anything to do with refuting the President-elects "need to qualify" in the Twentieth Amendment, section three. It's all bluster meant to look good to those who are unable to think for themselves. Deceit, misdirection, misrepresentation, that's what you post. You have ZERO credibility.

"The Twelfth Amendment says: “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; “

It sure does. In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE Amendment to prove that you are in deed, correct about this point.

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

For those who wish to believe you are being honest about this issue, I've also emboldened the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment. You know, the one which proves my point about the Twentieth Amendment, section three, the one you've conveniently left off of your specious argument. Lie and deceive others somewhere else.

Winston’s job is to make these threads “unreadable” to the point of ignoring them altogether. Just make like his post are invisible and pay no attention to them.

Like I posted earlier, the birth certificate controversy has nothing to do with whether or not Congress determined he was eligible or not as they are instructed to do by the Twentieth Amendment, section three of the Constitution. The fact that there are questions surrounding his birth tells us that Congress itself doesn’t know whether he is eligible to serve or not. He has “failed to qualify” and cannot legally be President.

Obama is not a legal President, but a usurper. We know this to be true just based upon the fact that he has "failed to qualify" as required by the Twentieth Amendment, section three. Not one member of Congress is willing to testify to having seen proof of his being eligible to serve. They are required to know whether or not a President-elect is or is not eligible because if he/she isn't, they must name a replacement.

Congress did not do it's sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. This doesn't make Obama legal. The "qualification" requirement has still never been met. In many ways, the birth certificate is just a sideshow to the main story, the "qualification" requirement of the Twentieth Amendment, section three.

"The Obama Birth Certificate is still important... because a foreign birth, and no removal of Obama...would mean Cruz can be President, since Obama set precedent by a foreign born serving as President"

By your logic, if someone gets away with murder, murder is then legal.

"What I am asking is why or why didn’t they ask?"

Blackmail, death threats, collusion, it probably varies by congressman such that each thought it better to wait out an illegal term of office rather than enforce the constitution. This results in full-scale treason on the part of Congress. The courts have been just as treasonous with this issue. Since so many have taken the poison, no one will confront it as it brings everyone down, not just the usurper.

Clarify please. Are you asking if there is a reason he (Obama) didn't qualify?

I will assume this is what you are asking. It's simple. Nobody from Congress will testify as to what documentation was presented to them confirming his constitutional eligibility to serve as President. This tells us that they didn't ask, or if they did ask, they were not shown such proof. I explain this in my posting earlier in the thread.

"He qualified for the ballot in every state, twice and numerous court rulings have declared him eligible for the office."

So what. He has to prove it to Congress or they have to name a replacement. This wasn't done. They didn't do their job. That's how you spell u-s-u-r-p-e-r.

It's really simple and doesn't require your thousand word explanation. The Twentieth Amendment, section three has far fewer words than that gobbily-gook you posted. It's also right there in the Constitution itself. Why are you trying to complicate the issue? What's wrong with the Twentieth Amendment, section three? Is it too much truth to handle?

Lower the drinking age to ten years old. Not many deaths due to drunk bicycle accidents, just scrapes and bruises. Then, by the time they’re old enough to drive a car, drinking will be so “ten year old like” that they’ll have moved on.

"How about a President-Elect who was (n)ever asked to prove his eligibility to Congress?

If Congress didn't ask, there still remains a "failure to qualify". One cannot claim that they "qualified" if they actually never did. In this case, if a qualification had been achieved, there would be no debating the issue. My congressman could cite the qualifying documentation with no problem. He can't. None of them can and none of them would be willing to testify to it in a court of law. This means it didn't happen. "Why" does not matter. There has been a failure to qualify.

As to your first question concerning who else has been required to prove eligibility, there have been a few mentioned in the threads posted over the past two or three years but I cannot name them right off. I think Eisenhower might have been one. All I can say is that it is required by the Constitution, a document our entire government has willfully disobeyed more and more as time goes on.

"There should be some decision by SCOTUS out there so stating and if not then some how a case needs to get before them so they can so state and put this divisive issue to rest. JMO....."

The SCOTUS does not have initial jurisdiction in this particular matter.

My post number 127 above tells you everything you need to know.

1. We do not currently have a legal President but a usurper.
2. Congress is in on it.

It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the Twentieth Amendment, section three is enforced. They willfully have declined to do their duty. Twice.

"Otherwise I don’t understand why all this confusion if it’s been decided."

The confusion is being purposely generated by those who wish to cloud the issue of Obama's ineligibility.

"Exactly. A President-Elect “qualifies” by being alive when his electoral votes are counted and certified and remaining alive and healthy enough to take the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day."

Pure Hokum.

Section Three accounts for a President-elect dying before being able to take the oath..

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."

This means that the "shall have qualified" refers to something else entirely. Since a "President-elect" legally does not exist until Congress ratifies the results of the Electoral College and names the actual person who is President-elect, this "shall have qualified" has nothing to do with election results.

The text clearly stating "or, if the President-elect shall have failed to" refers to an action of the President-elect, in this case "failing", or "not failing" to "Qualify". There is only one place in the constitution having anything to do with presidential "qualifications", those being the eligibility requirements in Article Two. Since Congress is instructed by Section three to name a replacement if the President-elect fails to qualify, they must know whether to act or not act.

The burden of proof is on the President-elect to prove his/her eligibility to Congress, and if he/she fails to do so, Congress names a replacement. This obviously did not occur because nobody in Congress is willing to testify to the veracity of Obama's birth documentation. This means that there has been a "failure to qualify" by the President-elect. The eligibility requirements start out with two words that keeps anyone who has failed to qualify from being a legal President. "No Person" It doesn't state "No Person EXCEPT someone who sneaks in because Congress was inattentive." It doesn't matter if Congress never did it's required duty under section three or if the President-elect actually failed to qualify due to documentation issues. In both instances, there has been a "failure to qualify" and thus no legal President, a usurper.

"So nowhere in the section of the Constitution you cited does it say the President-elect must prove he is eligible to serve."

"or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,"

I can explain it if need be.

" You could have posted the actual text of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, though of course that would have proven that what you claim is not correct.

OK, Game on. You post it and give us your explanation.

"But in reality it matters not a whit what is said or cited here. The only thing that matters is what nine black robed members of the SCOTUS proclaim."

Deport, my Freeper friend, this occurred in 1875, Minor versus Happersett.

"The candidates are honor bound to meet the two conditions because there is no government entity that checks or investigates the candidate’s eligibility."

According to the Twentieth Amendment, section three, a President-elect must prove he is eligible to serve or Congress is charged with naming a replacement. This did not occur as Congress avoided their duty and we thus have a usurper in the White House.

" The precedent, however, has been set. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, but that requirement has now been discarded.

Not so.

There are people who have committed murder and got away with doing so. This didn't make murder legal. The only way to discard the natural born citizen requirement is through the amendment process.

"You stop theft by stopping theft. Not by setting it up so that the theft continues.",

I end the theft by ultimately ending the plan. Your comment makes no sense as it pertains to what I've proposed.

"If the people receiving benefits want them to continue, then they should continue financing them."

With your help, they will and with their help you won't have to for as long and as much as they were forced into doing. That's teamwork and that's the only way this problem will ever be solved. Your age warfare model, once again very Obama-like, only serves to makes things worse, another Obama-like feature.

"So the program never ends. Congratulations. You’ve actually managed to shift the burden even more on young people while exempting older folks from paying into the system"

The program ends for those twenty years from retirement. They cannot receive benefits and must fund their own retirement but at least they have advance notice and they own their retirement and are not at the mercy of the government. Your line about older people not paying into the system is absurd. They've paid into the system their entire working lives, many more years than the someone younger is capable of.

"The reality is this - people retiring have more assets then those starting out. Social security robs people when they are poor and young to pay for those who are wealthy and don’t need the benefits. This is wrong"

This is what Obama would say.

"Your plan provides an immediate benefit to the boomers, (no surprise there), an guarantee of future benefits to the boomers, (also no surprise there)."

A "buy-out" is not a benefit. It is a way to lower the number of recipients so that the overall burden to younger generations is reduced. This "buy-out" certainly won't be enough to replace projected benefits but must be large enough to entice sufficient numbers of boomers to partake to accomplish the end goal of lowering overall cost. Part of this enticement involves the knowledge that benefits will be redefined for all of those opting to remain in the system. Some boomers will opt to take the buyout, others will choose to remain. In both cases, cost will be reduced for those in the workforce. In both cases, Boomers have had to take a reduction in what was promised them. How can you possibly describe this as the boomers ripping younger generations off?

"So who gets left holding the bag? Young folks. Everyone who’s not a boomer. I congratulate you on managing to shaft everyone, while still guaranteeing that Boomers get every dime of social security."

I just pointed out to you that those boomers who opt out get ZERO social security. That's certainly not "every dime". In addition, those boomers who remain in the system will have to accept whatever social security benefits result from it's restructuring, certainly less than they were expecting, and once again, not "every dime". They are thus holding their part of this "bag" you speak of. You seem to want them to hold it entirely. It's a shit bag to be sure, but everyone has a part to play in getting rid of it, not just the boomers. They are getting to choose between two less shitty bags while one of your bags actually has candy in it.

"Those in it now would have your system - those entering into it would be exempt."

Won't work. Those at the youngest end still will need THEIR benefits for a forty year period after THEY stop working. This "die-off" time has to be financed by someone.

"I’d actually support your plan with one change. The young people over 18 today pay in, but the young people under 17 will never have to pay social security taxes. Ever. Break the chain."

The problem cannot be eliminated without accounting for the die-off time of recipients. This means that taxes must be taken from paychecks as long as it takes to fund however many recipients there are. Over a forty or so year length of time, the numbers will diminish gradually (meaning less money out everyone's paychecks) to the point of extinction. After this point, the program is officially ended. Meanwhile, those who are not ever going to be eligible to receive benefits have a long enough time to actually do better for themselves than the lying, cheating government ever could have.

"If young folks wish to participate, great. But if we don’t, we should have the option of opting out."

Boomers never had this option. Our wages have been stolen from our entire working careers. While we were in the work force, our numbers were so great, it made it easy to steal from us and buy elderly votes while pretending there was no problem spending every dime we sent in without putting it away for our retirement needs.

What I propose would end this monstrosity at a cost less burdensome to younger generations. In fact, it raises your pay every time on of us dies. If you are 45, it gives you a twenty year head start on putting money aside for your own retirement that the government can't take away from you. It gives your children back their economic freedom. It does all of this without euthanasia or starvation being part of the mix.

How can you state that those twenty years away don't get anything positive from this? They get a graduating tax deduction, ownership of their own futures rather than government financial imprisonment, and economic freedom for their children.

This monster doesn't have a simple "on-off" switch. It has to receive support from everyone involved to gain acceptance. Tell me how your proposal to stop paying into the system can gain acceptance or face the reality that we are all in this together as a solution.

"The electorate has overwhelmingly and repeatedly chosen D."

There is another choice. End it entirely through a phase-out that ask something of everyone and gives something back to everyone.

Old people in this country were lied to by the media and their government their entire lives. Everything concerning those programs that imprisoned them were a fraud dressed as icing on the cake by design. It is only now that many have awakened to the truth that our very own government is, has been, and will be our biggest obstacle to regaining the liberty and freedom we were given by our nations founding fathers. Unfortunately for many, their misplaced trust in what their government and media have preached to them over and over has been abused.

I am approaching retirement age. I want social security abolished entirely. It is nothing more than government ownership of the elderly. The way to do this is simple. It must be done over a long enough period of time to be enacted in such a way that everybody wins something and gives something up in return.

1. Everyone currently on social security who actually paid into the system remains on the system until they die. Their cost of living increases would be adjusted as to amount and how often they occur. This means that over a four year time span, those who should never have been on the system in the first place, the real freeloaders, can receive a twenty-five percent reduction in benefits per year until they no longer receive anything and are off of the system.

2. Offer a one-time buyout to anyone within ten years of retirement such that they would be removed from the plan entirely and would never receive benefits. Their paychecks also would now be totally untouched by social security taxation making them an experienced, dependable, less expensive group of employees for anyone who hires them. This step alone would remove a considerable amount of future expense from the program making it a bit easier to manage as it is eliminated over time. Anyone who decides not to take the buyout will have to live with whatever adjustment are made to the plan in order to manage its cost. Whatever you borrow to fund this "buyout" will be easier to pay off and far less over time than having to pay the benefits they replace.

3. Those in the ten to twenty year range can be offered a smaller buyout or be stuck with whatever they end up with as the plan changes to contain cost.

4. Anyone over twenty years from retirement would be ineligible to receive benefits but their paychecks would still incur social security taxes until such a time as those taxes are no longer needed to fund paying recipients. Their net pay would rise as the number of those receiving social security die off. In a forty year time span, the program can be totally gone. This means that in twenty years time, you can get rid of social security and allow those who won't get it enough time to start saving for a personal retirement plan that THEY own, not the government.

Once this has been done, the real problem (the government itself, not the "old" people) will have been dealt with and permanently removed from the scene of the crime.

"The title is used for the apparent winner."

The "apparent" winner in November is the "apparent" President elect. The Constitution doesn't apply to anyone but the ACTUAL winner as determined by the ratification of the Electoral college votes by Congress. Legally, you don't know exactly who the "actual" President elect is until this has occurred.

”The qualification referred to in Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment concerns obtaining a majority of votes in the electoral college. Only the electoral college voting members are discharged with the duty to determine the eligibility of a candidate.”

Just a quick look at the Twentieth Amendment, Section three proves you are incorrect.

"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."

1. There is no such thing as a “President elect” until such a time that Congress ratifies the results of the electoral college election and someone is determined to have received the majority of votes. It is only then that we know who is actually the “President elect”. Once this occurs, the election is over. The Electoral College is no longer involved once the election is ratified by Congress. The beginning of the second sentence stating “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term” applies to those scenarios where a majority of electoral college votes was not gained by someone meaning that there is no “President elect”.

2. The second part of the second sentence, “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” refers to the actual person identified by the act of Congress ratifying the electoral college results having to “qualify” or Congress is charged with the responsibility of naming a replacement. The “President elect” exist only because he/she received a majority of the electoral college votes and had them ratified by Congress. Now, the Constitution requires him/her to “qualify” for something or Congress names a replacement. The only things left in the Constitution having anything to do with Presidential qualifications are the eligibility requirements from Article two. The wording clearly places the burden of “qualifying” on the President elect. Since Congress must name a replacement, they must be made aware of whether or not they must do so. The only way they can be made aware is by the President elect proving to them he/she meets the eligibility requirements. Lack of proof or non proof is the same thing as “failing to qualify” and Congress must then act.

3. Further proof that the “qualified” in Section Three has nothing to do with the Electoral college is found in the sentence ” 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."

If Congress names someone to act as President, it had nothing to do with the Electoral college results because this person might not have even been on the ballot yet whomever is ultimately selected by Congress still must “qualify”.

Congress did not obey the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and we have been stuck with a usurper now for five years running. They willfully disobeyed their oaths from Article Six to support the Constitution. Your statement as to who has standing to question eligibility is also incorrect. Anyone who took the oath of office from Article Six to support the Constitution has standing to ensure that they are keeping their oath. Ensuring that the Constitution is being fully enforced is keeping their oath to support it and no judge can deny them this duty. Obama’s own legal team argued that Congress is bound by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three in regards to verification of eligibility issues in their attempt to limit the standing of others having the right to do so.

"The Congress and the Court will not interfere with the people’s right to elect a usurper as their leader and Commander-in-Chief."

The Constitution ORDERS Congress to enforce the eligibility requirements in Section Three of the Twentieth Amendment. They ignored their Constitutional duty to do so. Legally, they don't have the luxury of ignoring the issue of eligibility. This also applies to the courts, as all judges swear an oath to support the Constitution, which is not possible if any of it is being ignored. Traitors all.

"So... who was President after Ronald Reagan ?"

The one who would have been President had the assassination attempt on Reagan been successful a month into Reagan's first term. The one in a chain of Presidents who knew what really happened in Dallas in 1963 and where put in place to keep the lid covered. The Bush brand is not trustworthy.

"No, you regurgitated your tired memes regarding Bush"

sounds insulting to me.

I answered in full everything you asked about in my post number 66. I backed it up concerning the Congressional blame with the link to the detailed argument. If you can't see that Bush was nothing more than Vaseline for the cramming of Obama up your butt, I can't help you.

"If it's so easy, how come Obama is still President, after FIVE YEARS and MILLIONS having knowledge of the fact he is a fraud?"

Are you saying that if Bush had exposed Obama during the 2008 campaign as a fraud the media would have ignored him? They would have been FORCED to cover the issue. They got away by NOT covering it and ignoring it ever since. Bush made their work easy by doing NOTHING.

"No, you regurgitated your tired memes regarding Bush. You did NOT answer my question."

I answered your question. You were too busy dishing out insults to search for what I told you to search for. Here's your detailed answer. If you're too lazy to read it, don't blame me.

Congress is Responsible For the Eligibility Fiasco

"George Bush is why we have Barrack Obama.

Horse manure."

You're right. He's that too.

"Let’s say President Bush had made such a declaration. How would he have proved it?"

Pretty easily. The evidence of fraud concerning the Obama storyline is quite abundant. The mainstream propaganda media would have been forced to cover this story if Bush had made it an issue of national security. It would not have been swept aside as evidence was brought forth such as the cold case posse uncovered. The fact is that the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three requires that the President Elect PROVE that he/she is eligible to serve or Congress must name a replacement. The eligibility issue would have been front and center before the election and there is no way Obama would have defeated Hillary Clinton much less get elected over John McCain.

"not one word from you about what Bush should have done."

As President, there were many ways to ensure that a domestic enemy is not elected to the highest office in the land. Dozens of ways. Bush did NONE of them. This means he is part of the act.

"President Bush wasn't running against Obama."

Doesn't mean squat. The JOB of the President requires protecting this nation from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. He and his intelligence knew who Obama was and did nothing. This is far worse than the nothing Obama did in Benghazi. Bush did nothing to defend America against the direct threat of enemy infestation into all levels of our Federal government that Obama would bring. In addition to serving as the golf tee for Obama's white house golf ball, Bush also provided the club (DHS) to hit that ball with. Bush deserves being a four-letter word.

"Thank you for NOT explaining."

I've explained it in great detail multiple times in multiple threads, including ones I've posted myself. Your failure to use your search engine is not my problem.

"True. President Bush SHOULD have trampled the Constitution"

He did. In addition to committing treason. Like I posted earlier. Obama knew the danger to Benghazi, could have prevented it, and did NOTHING. Bush knew the danger Obama as a domestic enemy posed to America, could have prevented it, and did NOTHING. NOTHING.

"Explain specifically why G.W.Bush is the only man in America who receives YOUR blame for Obozo????? "

If you search my postings concerning the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three You'll see that I have placed the blame squarely on Congress not upholding the Constitution in regards to the eligibility issue. Bush had the ability, as President during the campaign, to actually do something about it but chose to do NOTHING. He deserves full responsibility for choosing to do NOTHING. I repeat. NOTHING. Obama did nothing for Benghazi. Bush did nothing for America. You tell me which is worse.

"George W. Bush was a good president and is a fine man."

You must also think he and his intelligence agents knew nothing about what destruction an ineligible communist would bring to a nation they supposedly love.

They were in power. His oath of office includes protecting us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. He was President and did NOTHING. A fine man does not betray his own nation as Bush has his.

"What a load of crap. Anyone who peddles that line of BS doesn’t understand politics, and never will."

Do you think Bush and our government did not know Obama was a fraud? They were in office and did NOTHING to save this country from an illegal, communist regime change. Might not have been much of a change after all.

George Bush is why we have Barrack Obama.

Our 17 year old cat was found in our wall. We named him “Walter” in honor of his discovery.

"The fact is he was elected once, and then he was reelected."

Lets continue with debating these "facts". He WAS elected, then REELECTED. This in itself means absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint. The U.S. Constitution, Twentieth Amendment, Section Three is an instruction to Congress naming an interim President in the event of two circumstances. 1. If the President Elect shall have died before taking the oath of office, or 2. If the President Elect "shall have failed to qualify".

There is no such person as a President Elect until Congress has ratified the electoral college results and named someone as President Elect. Before this happens, someone simply has more electoral college votes than someone else.

Since it takes the act of ratifying the electoral college votes by Congress in order for a President Elect to be named, the portion of Section Three dealing with a "President Elects" failure to qualify has nothing to do with the election results. The fact is that the only thing left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" are the eligibility requirements from Article Two.

Congress is instructed to name an interim President if the President Elect fails to qualify. This means that they, Congress, must be made aware of whether or not they have to act. If the President Elect cannot prove to Congress that he meets the eligibility requirements of Article Two, he/she can NEVER be a legal President. He/She thus becomes a Usurper. This is all fact.

I blame liberals within our government for carrying out this attack, then finding a Saudi as a patsy all in an effort to justify non-coverage of the Gosnell trial.