Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Let me clear it up for you: YOUR assertion is ridiculous.
Tell the 20th Amendment that. I’m just telling you what it says.
Not that it matters at this point. The rule of law is SO LAST CENTURY! (and apparently that’s fine with all the moles and trolls...)
What don’t you get about “shall not act as President...”?
If a President failed to take the oath of office he would not be able to act as President. The oath of office is a prerequisite for being able to take up the duties of the office.
Same thing holds true for QUALIFYING. According to the 20th Amendment, until he actually qualifies (meets the Constitutional requirements, which include the political things at the state level such as getting the electoral votes, the political things at the federal level such as being certified as the winner, and the NON-POLITICAL things at the federal level such as meeting the age, residency, and citizenship requirements of Article I)) he cannot take up the duties of the office REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE IS TECHNICALLY THE PRESIDENT. A person can be a President and still not be able to do any of the duties of the office.
Do you understand? If not, what don’t you get about this? It’s not rocket science.
But your manner indicates that all you will do is flame and repeat the same stuff over and over. That’s what trolls do.
I’m done feeding you.
The question regarding “natural born citizen” has not been answered. The question has evaded review and is is capable of repetition. The question must be answered. Questions regarding constitutional provisions are decided by the Supreme Court.
The question of whether a particular individual is eligible is a question of law. Questions of law are decided by the Judiciary, not the Legislature.
Article II mandates that an ineligible person “shall not” be President. It does not delegate to Congress any determination of eligibility.
Fine, lets forget the dramatization that bothers you so and why don’t you show the article and section number of the Constitution where it say’s the president can be removed other than impeachment or becomes incapacitated. Or are you going to concoct something absurdly complicated and convoluted and connected by tenuous assumptions?
Read the Constitution. It’s utterly facinating. I read it 5 or 6 times a year and am still amazed at it’s subtleties and nuances, not to mention some short and succinct passages of clear meaning such as:
such as Article 2, Section 4.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Or
Article 3 section 3
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Your dramatizations are as amusing as they are ridiculous, they are no bother.
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. - Art. III sec 3
The Constitution here specifies what constitutes Treason. The question of whether a person’s acts meet these specifications is determined by the Judiciary.
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. - Art. II sec 1
The Constitution here specifies eligibility requirements. The question of whether a person meets these specifications is determined by the Judiciary.
We have had this argument before, and even before that. You simply can’t grasp it, or pretend not to to suit your own agenda.
1. Is Obama president of the United States?
2. How can he be constitutionally removed from office?
Now, like in the past, you’ll obfuscate and write erratically about some theory that if he wasn’t qualified, the election certification and the act of taking the oath of office don’t count and magically somebody hooks him off stage.
And I say: If Obama was presented on the ballots, won the electoral vote, which was certified by Congress, then sworn into office, then he was qualified and is President, and if assertions become true that he isn’t eligible, He can only be removed by impeachment — an act exclusive to Congress.
But that’s all theory, you or the Birthers in general have not ever proven to the public (and assertions of truth are not proven) that Obama is ineligible.
Thanks for pulling that perfect forensic gem out of your archive!
There is nothing there that I particularly disagree with after a casual reading other than:
The Constitution here specifies eligibility requirements. The question of whether a person meets these specifications is determined by the Judiciary.
Show me where this is enumerated and if you can’t show me where you think it is plausibly inferred.
And if you show me an inference, I’ll show you a stronger inference that say’s otherwise.
I’m not at all sure the judiciary gets much of a say.
Individual state secretaries-of-state (or equivalent) determine who appears on the ballot according to state law.
Congress certifies the results.
Because it is a question of law.
The point about treason is that it is an oddity in that the Judiciary convicts, Congress Sentences.
Which infers a degree of “treasonous”. As they [Congress] can decide to remove and execute him, or give him 100 hours of changing bed pans at Bethesda Navy Hospital.
Please agree with me louder.
No, it’s a question of Constitutional Politics. A game that exists, but few will acknowledge.
That is completely laughable.
Defining “natural born citizen” is a question of law. Whether a person is or is not a “natural born citizen”, or 35 years old, for that matter, are questions of fact. Both are determined judicially.
Yeah, my mistake. Figured I’d add something, I did, confusion!
Thanks for the posting. Any idea what the #2 is for the home?
There is NOTHING in the Constitution, and NOTHING in any statute whatsoever that specifies HOW or BY WHOM a person’s eligibility for the Presidency is to be determined.
The matter has been left entirely up to the general public.
He is the one who has to qualify. It is not on us to prove he’s ineligible; it’s on him to prove he IS. And he’s never done that. He CAN’T do that because he has no US birth certificate that’s legally VALID. That’s according to the HI state registrar’s response to the AZ SOS’s request for verification of Obama’s birth facts. He would not verify any birth fact.
And you are simply not listening to what I’m saying, to comprehend my point. I’m saying that whether he is President is MOOT because the 20th Amendment says he cannot ACT as President even if he IS President. We don’t have to REMOVE him to keep him from being able to do anything. The 20th Amendment is already supposed to guarantee that he is literally President in name only (having no power to do ANYTHING Presidential) if he turns out to be ineligible, unwilling to take the oath of office, or Constitutionally disqualified in some other way.
SCOTUS has only gotten away with ignoring the issue because the lower (threatened) judges have all agreed that it’s nobody’s business. If my kid died of a disease Obama deliberately allowed into this country it would be my freakin’ business. These judges are KILLING this country and telling us it doesn’t even belong to us any more. LIE. LIE. LIE. When this country is dead the obituary will say she was killed by these judges.
And with that, I really am done with you, since you’re not exhibiting basic comprehension of what I’m saying.
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.