Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
“The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true.”
In a Court proceeding, the allegations are assumed to be true. The next step is for the Judge to determine if any particular harm has befallen the complainant and, if so, what can be done about it.
So far, no complainant has been able to show a particular harm, so the case is dismissed. A usurper can be tried in Court, but the plaintiff must described a particular harm; such as, a fine for not buying health insurance under a law signed into law by a usurper. Any particular harm or threat of harm for an act deemed illegal by a usurper gives standing to a plaintiff.
Even then, the usurper will not be removed by order of the Court. The Court will rule the plaintiff does not have to pay the fine or spend time in jail because the plaintiff has successfully objected to laws signed into law by the usurper.
After the usurper leaves office, through impeachment or term limit, the laws signed by the usurper cannot be objected to by the Defacto Officer Doctrine. Dems are running the clock out by giving temporary waivers. After Obama leaves, by term limit or impeachment, Obamacare becomes permanent and the fines (taxes) associated with it cannot be objected too.
I no longer read these birther articles. They set my teeth on edge and I feel powerless and depressed.
May God save this nation because it is imploding fast.
what is the penalty for this over the top treason these days? barry is directly responsible for murder, isn’t he? is there such a thing as justice in America anymore?
No, you haven’t offended me, and yes you did mention the Congress. It is the frustration of the situation and how I don’t see it ending any time soon that makes me so strident. Sorry if I’ve rattled you; didn’t mean to.
The Democrat Party is the root of the problem and Congress the result.
There are people working in the government who’ve lied to Congress about the eligibility of BHO2. They’re Democrats - all of them.
The Democrat Party is a criminal syndicate IMO.
A lot of questions come to mind upon reading the affidavit. I wish there was a way to get together the various researchers so we could cross-examine each other’s evidence, assumptions, and conclusions, as well as subject all of it to the legal standards necessary to establish probable cause.
Maybe somebody can tell me the difference between a computer scanner and a commercial photocopier. Do both use green-based light, which would remove green from an image?
I come from a scientific bent. The way you know how stuff works is by trying it and observing what happens. If I want to know whether a seal - either with dots and dashes, or with solid lines - will show up in a scan I scan those kinds of seals and see what happens. If I want to see what will show up in a photo I take photos. Etc. I don’t have to rely on the qualifications of any person and trust them to be telling me the truth; I just let nature itself tell me how things are. It’s a scientific process.
Seals don’t always show up in a scan. They always show up in a photograph. If they break the surface of the paper they show up in a scan; if they bend the paper they sometimes show up in a scan and sometimes don’t. Case in point: the continuous-line HDOH Director’s seal shows up clearly in a scan of the MDEC letter of verification. It doesn’t show up in scans of AZ’s or KS’s letters. I questioned whether the seal was on the AZ letter because there is no evidence of it in the scan that was posted online. But I had some colleagues go to the AZ SOS’s office and take photos of the document; the seal could ALWAYS be seen in the photos. Even when the image couldn’t be seen visually in the photo, when you adjusted the brightness and contrast it could ALWAYS be seen. So there is a difference between a copier or scanner taking a photo of a document, versus a camera taking a photo. I don’t know what the difference is, or why it is there, but I observe that there is a difference.
The BC numbering is an issue that has OBVIOUSLY been obfuscated by deceptions. There are two stories about exactly when the numbers were given in 1961. HDOH Communications Director Okubo says they were numbered the same day as they were received at the state registrar’s office (which is what Vogt bases his analysis on). The 1976 Administrative Rules use the numbering synonymously with official acceptance of the record - after which amendments must be formally made through a specific process. But Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate has amendments after official acceptance that never went through the official amendment process. Then again, her death certificate has 4 blatant anomalies just in the first line...
The other story is that the BC’s were collected for a month and then numbered. The CDC keypunching manual from 1960 (in effect in 1961) shows that the microfilm that HI sent to the CDC each month had all the births within a designated geographic area together and numbered consecutively. The only way to do that is if the BC’s were collected for a month and then numbered, because the HDOH office would receive BC’s from the city of Honolulu along with BC’s from places outside Honolulu - like Wahiawa, where Virginia Sunahara was born. The local registrar at the time (Verna K L Lee) has said that the BC’s were collected for a month and the BC’s for each geographic area were put in chronological order. But there is information I can’t tell anybody that suggests that the HDOH and/or Verna Lee are talking out of both sides of their mouth on that as well.
Regardless of which way the BC’s were numbered, Obama’s BC# doesn’t work exactly. And no matter what explanation is given, there are other BC#’s that also don’t work. And they are errors that go beyond simple mis-ordering by an office worker. For instance, Sunahara’s death certificate that has not only an anomalous BC# (by ALL possible numbering methods) but anomalous fonts and a discrepancy between whether HI was a state or a territory at the time!!!
What it comes down to is this: there has obviously been so much deception regarding EVERY policy and practice that somehow involves Obama’s BC, that the only way to know what really happened, and what all official records have been altered, when, by whom, and why, is by looking at the actual historical records, including multiple years’ worth of paper records, microfilm records, and computer transaction logs. That is why we need a federal investigation in which production of those records can be COMPELLED. We know that deceptions and crimes have been committed by the HDOH involving every other state in the union because it foists document and election fraud on all of us.
I don’t know the grand jury process, or how a federal investigation can be compelled, but that’s what needs to happen.
Who's job is it to make a determination as to what the term "natural born Citizen" means in the context of the Constitution?
I believe that would fall on the (fed) courts, not Congress. SCOTUS could within their power, make a determination as to whether someone born owing allegiance to a foreign power is considered a "natural born Citizen" as intended by the framers for AII,S1,C5 purposes.
In other words, they could find someone born with foreign allegiance owed to be eligible or not.
Chinese have Triad, Japanese have Yakuza, The USA has the Democraps.
Funny how hussein and Hillary stated in their very own Senate Resolution 511 that NBC meant born on US soil of two US citizen parents but no one has confronted him with that.
Congress certifies the election through a 'negative affirmation' process. Meaning if they do not assert and successfully challanged the election, then the election stands.
If they feel they made a mistake, they have a remedy, and that remedy doesn't entangle the U.S judicial system and SCOTUS into a political cat and dog fight. Oh, and that remedy is impeachment.
In other words, they could find someone born with foreign allegiance owed to be eligible or not.
USCON A1 S8 4th clause:
To establish an [SIC] uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
What is the difference between "Uniform Rule" and "Uniform Law"? Here apparently the USCON distinguishes between the two? I say a "rule" is something less than a law, but more than a procedure
Much in there I agree with, some I disagree.
Allegations are not *assumed* to be true. Allegations are proven through a “preponderance of evidence”. That is the civil side, the criminal side is “innocent until .... “.
“Standing” includes the concept that the person has been harmed.
As for Obamacare becoming permanent — there is no single nor sole act that actually makes Obamacare permanent. It’s just a law subject to re-prioritizing through the legislative process and Judicial review before the appropriate court.
OBama is eligible until proven uneligible, only he can't be proven ineligible by the courts as that is a specific enumeration given to CONGRESS -- which through the negative affirmation process, implicitly deemed Obama eligible.
Eligibility is a legal question not a political question.
Political questions do not provide fixed standards, but ever changing standards... which is not a standard at all.
Legal questions are resolved judicially by determining facts and applying law.
The court can define the qualifications laid out in the constitution. Then I agree congress would have to act to remove him.
I would add that the various Secretaries of State did not do anything on this issue.
We are slowly and surely losing the idea of being a nation of laws and just one of political power. Maybe we have always been that way
You’re ignoring my post to you. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the responsibiltiy of determining eligibility of elected CONGRESS members, but where does it similarly give Congress that authority for a PRESIDENT?
The certification of the electoral vote is certification that each state’s electoral votes was duly counted and the final result was such-and-so.
Here are the direct words of the 12th Amendment pertaining to this: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President... and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - 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”
The 20th Amendment says that a President elect who has failed to qualify as of the start of the term shall not “act as President”. A person cannot be President elect without having the required majority of electoral votes, so the failure to qualify cannot be because they didn’t have enough electoral votes. As long as they have those they are to be President. But they cannot ACT as President if they are disqualified. The QUALIFICATIONS to be President are thus independent of the electoral vote that CHOSE one as President. The QUALIFICATIONS are that they be a natural born US citizen, at least 35 years old, and have resided in the US for at least 14 years.
Nowhere in either the Constitution or its 12th or 20th Amendments is Congress given the responsibility to determine whether the President elect has QUALIFIED. In order for it to be a political question, as you have claimed, the Constitution has to specifically say that a political body is tasked with the job. The Constitution specifically tasked Congress to determine eligibility of its members. Where does it similarly task Congress with determining the eligibility of the President? If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t do it, and this CANNOT be a “political question”.
All cases and controversies resulting from the Constitution are automatically the responsibility of the judicial branch unless the Constitution specifically gives the task to somebody else. So unless you can come up with specific words where the Constitution gives the task to somebody else, the judiciary is the proper place for the qualifications of the President elect to be decided.
From that page the first question is;
Question: What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?
Answer:
If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.Then further down on that page is another question.
Question: Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?
Answer:
The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.
In light of this answer I emailed the contact for that page the following.
From: Greg XXXXXXXI think there should be transcripts of some past joint sessions where eligibility is discussed. IE Chester Arthur for instance or maybe perhaps President number 10, John Tyler, who was one of the first NBC Presidents.
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:23 PM
To: 'electoral_college@nara.gov'
Subject: US Code 3On this page "Previous Questions of The Week." here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html
There are two questions I would like to address, the First one is "What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?" And the answer is correct as it states the process described in the 20th amendment and US Code 3 Sec 19. US Code 3 describes the process of counting the electoral vote for President and Vice President during a joint session of congress.
Then a subsequent question "Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?" That answer is not very specific. You mention the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives but go on to state it is a states issue. Well in section 11 we see the first mention of the Archivist. But there are three other copies of the certificates, one set being delivered to the President of the Senate. Then is section 15 we see that two tellers from each house previously selected and are handed the certificates for opening and are dealt with in an alphabetical order. It goes on to explain and clarify the counting process.
The word qualify does not appear until section 19 when it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?
Very good catch and thanks for requesting answers. Don’t hold your breath on that reply.
Eligibility of the President is a political question in that a majority of Electoral College voters can elect anyone, even a person that is ineligible. At the state level, voters are voting for the electors and not the specific candidates. You are right in that Congress can only affirm or deny the counted votes and not the eligibility of the candidates.
SCOTUS has repeatedly opined the natural born citizenship requirement is undefined and not specific, affirming eligibility to be a political question with respect to an election and swearing in.
Eligibility becomes a matter for adjudication when a person claims a usurper has caused them specific and a particular harm when the usurper sign a law or executive order which impacted the complainant directly, i.e. a plaintiff was sent notice he/she must pay a fine for not obtaining health insurance after the ACA was signed by Obama. The plaintiff will have standing to object to a usurper directly and negatively impacting their life with a law signed by the usurper. After standing is established, the usurper will have to prove eligibility or the plaintiff will absolved of paying any fines or penalties.
A plaintiff with standing cannot have a usurper removed from office because a majority have voted to put the usurper in office. Each person, individually, must object to the usurper after they have suffered a particular harm or threat of harm due to the actions of the usurper.
Waivers run the clock out for the usurper until he leaves office. No one person with a waiver of fines or penalties has standing to sue the usurper. Once the usurper leaves office, the DeFacto Officer Doctrine indemnifies the U.S.Government. The laws of the usurper cannot be challenged by the fact a person objects to a usurper imposing fines or penalties on them after the usurper leaves office.
I think you're mistaken on that. Here's the text of S.Res 511: Link
Article II commands that an ineligible person shall not be President. Article II does not distinguish between ineligibility prior to an election or after, a person failing to meet the requirements is at all times legally disqualified.
It is solely for the Judiciary to determine eligibility, and for no other Branch. To allow an ineligible person to remain in Office on the premise that the Legislature has not impeached would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5. Eligibility would be rendered meaningless, subject to the varying winds of political power. It would be a subversion of republican principles.
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.