Posted on 04/23/2010 3:21:17 PM PDT by RobinMasters
A Georgia lawmaker who is part of a coalition in that state supporting a change in the law to require presidential candidates to document their eligibility to the Oval Office says it's really the responsibility of members of Congress to make sure a foreign-born individual or dual citizen isn't installed in the White House.
But he said without the leadership in Washington necessary to do that, it is up to states to tackle the issue. And several are in the process of doing just that, with a wide range of proposals in Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, Minnesota, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma that could address candidates and their qualifications.
Plans in several other states, including Indiana, Virginia and New York were proposed but have not yet succeeded.
"If Congress was being responsible about this, Congress would step in and enact reasonable requirements," state Rep. Mark Hatfield said today in an interview on the G. Gordon Liddy show, where WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah was filling in behind the microphone for the G-Man."
In the absence of action by Congress states have a duty to step up," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping
In the absence of action by Congress states have a duty to step up,” he said.
You mean those powers not enumerated to Federal Government, belong to the States?
It’s the United STATES. Let the states step up to take some of their rightful responsibilities.
I suppose that this might be *partially* correct...as far as it goes.But my hunch is that the SCOTUS would have a say in this as well.Perhaps even the *final* say.
" ”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.”
Exhibit B 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. “
Exhibit C: 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 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.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s 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 this was done, 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 should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
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 Exhibit A), 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. This 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. We need to start 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. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
And it's a federal responsibility. I don't believe for a minute a 21 year old would be seated in either the House or the Senate. The responsibility for the vetting might be a bit less clear. The Electoral College, the Courts, but clearly there's a Federal responsibility to determine the eligibility of someone taking office as well.
it’s not a federal election. it’s 50 state elections. Any state can require a candidate show a birth certificate to qualify to be on the ballot. All that’s needed is one state to pass such a law before 2012.....
Seems reasonable to me. I pray someone will do it.
Any suggestions for how an ordinary citizen could go about this without having to spend big bucks in attorney fees?
I would like to see Ohio, Florida and Texas do the same.
And California.
ping
It makes more sense that the states would have had the responsibility for vetting candidates, since at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, states had their own citizenship laws and definitions. The Federal government only had the power to naturalize.
Really?
The power of naturalization is in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States ...”
I was kidding. LOL
Thought the tone of my first post implied sarcasm, guess not.
i seem to recall during the campaign that mccain was vetted. i saw it on the news multiple times. they dug into where he was born and if it was constitutional.
so...they did it for mccain.. why not obama?
Best to play it safe. A lot of faithers and sand heads need to see it spelled out.
Why not indeed? Maybe because Obama the constitutional law professor KNEW he couldn't pass muster as a natural born citizen? They may be trying the old razzle dazzle of ultimately producing a long form BC showing birth in Hawaii so that the Kenyan babydaddy will be forgotten about.
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.