Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your Next Jury Duty Should Ask For Proof That Federal Law Currently Exist
March 17, 2013 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 03/17/2013 6:56:40 PM PDT by Uncle Sham

Jury duty is something we all are asked to serve at one time or another in our lives. In a just society, where the enforcement of law is critical to maintaining civility and order, jury duty is an honor. In an unjust society, where the enforcement of law is simply a charade, jury duty reduces those who are called upon to nothing more than actors and actresses helping to maintain the fraudulent facade of authenticity being put forth by the state.

In my opinion, since it is evident that the Federal laws having to do with the eligibility of the President are currently being ignored by those assigned to enforce them, that there is no law at the top, thus, there can be no law at the bottom.

If the person who supposedly is the chief law enforcement officer in the nation is illegal, how on earth can the rest of any of it be made to seem "legal"? If I were asked to be a juror on a Federal case, I would refuse to render a verdict until the Federal government can prove to me BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the current person claiming to be my President is in fact legally eligible to serve. I would have them quote the evidence that was used to determine his eligibily as required under the Constitution in the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.

If I were a defense attorney in a Federal case, I would force the Federal government to prove to my jury beyond that same reasonable doubt that it is enforcing the laws at the top and not just the laws at the bottom.

If there is no law at the top of the current Federal government, the current Federal government is outlaw and should be dealt with by the Armed Services, County Sheriffs, and the states.

We the People own this country and we are not actors from Hollywood. We need a few of us to start acting like the citizens we are.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: birftards; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; juryduty; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
Jury Duty anyone?
1 posted on 03/17/2013 6:56:40 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

This would be the solution... If I could just CONVINCE people. Jury nullification is the EASIEST way to rein in ridiculous extra-constitutional OVERREACH. As a juror PROMISE to obey the judges orders, then do what you damn well please because a JUROR cannot be coerced. If you feel that the law is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional... NULLIFY IT!


2 posted on 03/17/2013 7:03:22 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Your argument sounds much like the argument Col. Terry Lakin used as he claimed the Commander in Cheif had no valid basis to claim he was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore was not a legitimate president.

We all know how well (not) that worked out for him. Much the same way any similar claims to get out of jury duty will work for you.

Face it. We are constrained by liars and fools pretending to govern us. Just have to deal with it.


3 posted on 03/17/2013 7:09:01 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
"Much the same way any similar claims to get out of jury duty will work for you."

This is not for getting out of Jury duty. This what I would do if I were fortunate enough to land on a Federal jury.

4 posted on 03/17/2013 7:12:23 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
In my opinion, since it is evident that the Federal laws having to do with the eligibility of the President are currently being ignored by those assigned to enforce them

Who is assigned to enforce them, since obvioucly nobody has.

5 posted on 03/17/2013 7:20:08 PM PDT by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Check out Jury Nullification. The last refuge of a free people.


6 posted on 03/17/2013 7:23:23 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I don’t consider jury duty to be an honor.On the contrary it’s an imposition that cost the potential juror not only time but money as well.

Just ask a judge if you can skip out of jury duty or fail to show up on the appointed date.You will probably get a contempt of court charge thrown at you.Proving how involuntary and honorable the jury system really is.

The Only way I would look foreward to being on a jury is if I could nullify all of these anti-Second amendment prosecutions that will follow all of these new gun control laws.

I would look foreward to that.


7 posted on 03/17/2013 7:27:42 PM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PistolPaknMama
"Who is assigned to enforce them, since obvioucly nobody has."

Twentieth Amendment, Section Three places the burden of proving eligibility upon the President elect. If he/she cannot, or "fails" to do so, Congress is instructed to name a replacement. Congress has avoided its duty now twice. This means there is no legal President at this time. I've proven this to be the case on numerous threads.

8 posted on 03/17/2013 7:33:06 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

basically what you’re alluding to is that the Constitution is in breech.

and since the law is a series of contracts based on each other... if the founding document is in breech, so are the rest

we’re living in a lawless society. we just haven’t figured it out yet


9 posted on 03/17/2013 8:00:57 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten
"we’re living in a lawless society. we just haven’t figured it out yet"

Some of us have. The task ahead is to force the actions of the Federal government itself to admit such. They want the charade to continue. We must find ways to expose them by their inability to admit the truth. It is their weak spot and we must attack it frontally.

10 posted on 03/17/2013 8:08:43 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
I like it. Within the bounds of legitimate law, we all should resist the decay of freedom and civilization when, how and wherever the opportunity presents itself.

Aka obama's fraud:

* Not a natural born Citizen (not merely born in USA, but born of citizen parents).

* Bogus Social Security Number - issued from Connecticut, a state in which he never lived (fails E-verify).

* Birth certificate document fraud - pdf of BC from whitehouse-dot-gov website is a clear forgery, not a scan of a paper document (BC number very likely stolen from Hawaiian born Virginia Sunahara, who tragically died at one day of age).

* Not born in any Hawaiian hospital (maybe born elsewhere in Hawaii - probably born out of USA as he claimed for years in his own book bio, but who really knows since no one has been able to vet our liar-in-chief).

* Bogus Selective Service Registration number - probably failed to register as a young man, thus ineligible for any federal office.

* Probably attended Occidental College registered as an Indonesian foreign national (used his adoptive citizenship to game the system).

* In light of his adoption and massive identity record fraud, do we even know aka obama's real name?

PS: Regarding presidential eligibility, our Founders required more than just being born a mere citizen, for the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a "born citizen," but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen.

The Founders labored, deliberated and debated over the content of the Constitution for many months. They did not willy-nilly add superfluous, meaningless words. If they had meant to allow the broader category of "born citizen" they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere "born citizens."

Ask yourself, who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious - those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.

By blood and by dirt - and the criminal fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.

11 posted on 03/17/2013 8:19:12 PM PDT by elengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
Jury Duty anyone?

Contempt of court, anyone?

I am not a lawyer, but I really doubt this will be an effective strategy. Judges have a lot of discretion in their courts and they do not like idiotic grandstanding. If you're a juror trying to hold up the judicial process, I can see the judge charging you with contempt of court and swiftly replacing you with one of the alternatives. If you're a defense attorney, you will be charged with contempt of court along with facing legal malpractice charges from your client.

I don't see any possible positive solutions from your scenarios, but, like I say, I'm not a lawyer. If there is a lawyer here who has a better handle on how things work, I'd love to hear their take on this.

12 posted on 03/17/2013 8:19:12 PM PDT by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

I don’t know that I consider an honor..but it is a civic duty. Kind of like voting. So maybe it is an honor, on second thought.

Do I get annoyed that pertinent evidence is with held during a trial that might affect my decision? You bet.

Do I get EXTREMELY annoyed if I spend my time sitting in a jury pool all day...and then they settle “out of court”? Dang right. That shouldn’t be allowed imho.


13 posted on 03/17/2013 8:28:49 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Impeachment File for B. Hussein Obama.


14 posted on 03/17/2013 8:29:09 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Your next thread should ask for proof read headline.


15 posted on 03/17/2013 8:34:44 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Well said....and true.


16 posted on 03/17/2013 8:43:32 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I don’t have to worry about ever being called for jury duty. I REFUSE to provide all the documents required to get a Federal license. This means I cannot enter a federal building. So I can’t serve. Same applies to state courts.


17 posted on 03/17/2013 8:45:20 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system - the judicial branch.

How does an illegal head of the executive branch effect the judicial branch?

18 posted on 03/17/2013 9:42:38 PM PDT by stylin19a (obama - Fredo smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I was a Prosecutor for 25 years. You’d probably never make it on the jury and would be tossed if you tried it. Jury nullification is different but this approach is silly and accomplishes nothing.

And you can’t just decide you get to make the State “prove” something. That is not the way the system works. You’d have zero credibility and would be tossed out of the courtroom.


19 posted on 03/17/2013 9:49:19 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Great, I’m always looking for new ways to avoid jury duty. One way is to proudly declare you’re a member of the ACLU.


20 posted on 03/17/2013 9:52:19 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
This would be the solution... If I could just CONVINCE people. Jury nullification is the EASIEST way to rein in ridiculous extra-constitutional OVERREACH. As a juror PROMISE to obey the judges orders, then do what you damn well please because a JUROR cannot be coerced. If you feel that the law is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional... NULLIFY IT!

That has always been a citizen's ultimate weapon. If you want to get out of jury duty just say the magic words.

The law of unintended consequences.
If the elected criminals plan to eliminate the first, the second and.. well, the entire Bill of Rights, They will also have to eliminate trial by jury. Haven't we been there before? The Magna Carta as I recall.

Political devolution has been the death of tyrants throughout history.

21 posted on 03/17/2013 10:48:15 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
I was a Prosecutor for 25 years. You’d probably never make it on the jury and would be tossed if you tried it. Jury nullification is different but this approach is silly and accomplishes nothing.
And you can’t just decide you get to make the State “prove” something. That is not the way the system works. You’d have zero credibility and would be tossed out of the courtroom.

Quite the smug little toad, are you not? Delusional, too.

That's not the way the system works? The system has been perverted the same way the family has been perverted.
Believe me, when jury nullification finally vaccinates the system, you'll never see it coming!

22 posted on 03/17/2013 10:53:48 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
We all know how well (not) that worked out for him. Much the same way any similar claims to get out of jury duty will work for you.
Face it. We are constrained by liars and fools pretending to govern us. Just have to deal with it.

A silly comparison.
A prospective Juror need not challenge the judge or the court, nor can he be forced to. He just is obligated to vote his conscience after he has heard all the evidence.

23 posted on 03/17/2013 11:06:24 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; Responsibility2nd

Now, if everybody did it...If 500,000 people showed up in Albany, Denver, DC with standard capacity(30 rd) mags and evil black rifles.


24 posted on 03/17/2013 11:59:49 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
Check out Jury Nullification. The last refuge of a free people.

The tyrants answer is always secret trials or military tribunals.

25 posted on 03/18/2013 12:15:44 AM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

If I was ever on Trial, I would have my Lawyer ask the Judge to verify the Citizenship of every Juror sitting in that Jury Box.

Since I have no plans of actually being put on Trial, unless it’s because I won’t comply with any of the new fashionable Obama Lover Gun Control Laws, I am waiting for the day that someone actually challenges the Courts to enforce the Constitutional Requirement of Juries consisting of your Peers, fellow Citizens, not Illegal Invaders.

With the biggest Vote Fraud scheme of the modern era, the Motor Voter Law signed by the Rapist and Cigar abusing Bill Clinton, the chances of being Judged by a Jury of fellow Citizens is seriously in doubt.


26 posted on 03/18/2013 12:30:25 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A Republican freed the Slaves and a Democrat murdered Martin Luther King.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Heathen.


27 posted on 03/18/2013 12:44:51 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

And damn proud of it.


28 posted on 03/18/2013 12:52:12 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A Republican freed the Slaves and a Democrat murdered Martin Luther King.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Indeed. My kin by clan, also. All the best


29 posted on 03/18/2013 1:03:02 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

All the best to you too my Friend.

Free Republic, all for one and one for all. Wolverines!

Hitting the hay, goodnight...


30 posted on 03/18/2013 1:10:00 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A Republican freed the Slaves and a Democrat murdered Martin Luther King.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
"I can see the judge charging you with contempt of court..."

Obviously, your not a "Lawyer / Attorney," and Obviously never sat on a jury (I have {sat on a jury} & did try some "Idiotic grandstanding") a.k.a., Jury Nullification.

To say the judge was shall we say very, very, upset, Yes he was. The only judgment that was handed out to me was I was removed from the jury, PERIOD.

To state that you have ZERO IDEA, of a juror's rights, privileges, and IMMUNITIES WOULD BE AN understatement.

31 posted on 03/18/2013 1:42:07 AM PDT by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

“To say the judge was shall we say very, very, upset, Yes he was. The only judgment that was handed out to me was I was removed from the jury, PERIOD.”.

And I’ll bet it didn’t take long to achieve either. DO NOT SCREW with the Court System or the Judge. You will loose EVERY time.


32 posted on 03/18/2013 4:27:51 AM PDT by Progov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
Twentieth Amendment, Section Three places the burden of proving eligibility upon the President elect.

Prove to whom? You're talking about enforcing federal law. What law gives the responsibility to what federal agency for examining candidate qualifications and ensuring they are correct?

33 posted on 03/18/2013 4:46:50 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
"...the chances of being Judged by a Jury of fellow Citizens is seriously in doubt..."

Try Miami, Florida. :-/

34 posted on 03/18/2013 4:54:56 AM PDT by Does so (Progressives Don't Know the Meaning of INFRINGED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

I have heard of cases in which a juror promised to obey the judge’s orders, then was convicted of perjury after exercising the right of jury nullification. Unfortunately, if you do not agree to apply the law as the judge directs, you will not be on the jury.

The only time I have actually made it into the courtroom for jury selection, I told the judge politely that I was not comfortable with giving up my right to nullify. I made it clear that I was not seeking such an opportunity, but was dismissed at once. The judge was not angry, and even thanked me for my candor; nevertheless, I was out.


35 posted on 03/18/2013 5:30:02 AM PDT by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
"How does an illegal head of the executive branch effect the judicial branch? "

The President is the top law enforcement officer in the nation. If he/she is illegal, there can be no law enforcement that is legal. Law is everything or nothing, not just to be enforced for the bottom dwellers. As to the court system, they are currently guilty of nullification of the eligibility requirements in the Constitution. Nullification must be fine and proper if those who pretend to rule over us utilize it.

36 posted on 03/18/2013 5:35:46 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin

Hmmm... sounds like if everyone knew this little bit,
they’d have trouble seating any jurors.


37 posted on 03/18/2013 5:39:00 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
"And you can’t just decide you get to make the State “prove” something. That is not the way the system works."

If I am a juror, the state HAS to prove something. In fact, they have to prove something "beyond my reasonable doubt". I have a reasonable doubt that Federal law exist anymore in this nation due to the nullification by our government of the eligibility requirements in the Constitution. They are asking me to verify that Federal law exist when they want me to act on its behalf as a juror. If they can prove it exist, beyond my reasonable doubt then I can do my duty in upholding the law. If there is no law, don't ask me to act as though there is on your behalf. That's the way the system works.

38 posted on 03/18/2013 5:44:17 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
"What law gives the responsibility to what federal agency for examining candidate qualifications and ensuring they are correct? "

The Constitution is law. Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. The federal agency is "Congress". They are guilty of eligibility nullification.

39 posted on 03/18/2013 5:47:43 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB

They probably would, or else the judges would have to stop requiring jurors to give up their rights, which would not be such a bad outcome.

I like to tell people that if they want to get out of being on a jury, all they have to do is use the N-word in the courtroom. (Not that N-word, but “nullification”.)


40 posted on 03/18/2013 5:48:07 AM PDT by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

American presidential elections are conducted by the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each state plus DC has its own election laws and eligibility requirements. We do not, in effect, have a federal election, we have 50 state elections plus a federal district election.
The Federal Elections Commission has jurisdiction over campaign finance law.
Congress has no statutory authority to disqualify a candidate absent a state level disqualification.
The chief election officer in each state, usually the Secretary of State, has the ultimate authority to determine who is eligible to be on the ballot. In 2012 there were 50 ballot challenges to Obama heard in courts or before Elections Boards in 22 states. None of the ballot challenges were successful. Absent a state’s chief elections officer ruling or a successful court/elections board ballot challenge, Congress had no grounds to act. Those facts are amplified by the fact that none of the defeated candidates who also received Electoral votes: McCain, Palin, Romney or Ryan ever filed suit; nor did the Republican National Committee on their behalf.
Congress had no grounds to charge that the President-elect had failed to qualify.


41 posted on 03/18/2013 8:09:25 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
The Federal Elections Commission has jurisdiction over campaign finance law.

The FEC has jurisdiction over campaign financing. They are not tasked with checking presidential eligibility.

Congress had no grounds to charge that the President-elect had failed to qualify.

So then there is no federal law to protest as Uncle Sham would like us to do.

42 posted on 03/18/2013 1:55:02 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
The Constitution is law. Twentieth Amendment, Section Three.

Then who does the Constitution say must determine whether the President is eligible. It's not in the 20th Amendment itself.

43 posted on 03/18/2013 1:56:27 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

“The FEC has jurisdiction over campaign financing. They are not tasked with checking presidential eligibility.”

Yeah, that’s what I said.


“So then there’s no federal law to protest as Uncle Sham would like us to.”

I think that Uncle Sham is correctly alluding to the federal statute that allows any one Representative and any one Senator to object in writing to the certification of the Electoral votes of a candidate at the Joint Session of Congress held to count the Electoral votes.
Neither Dick Cheney nor Joe Buden, in their roles as President of the Senate asked for objections, they just certified.


44 posted on 03/18/2013 2:29:32 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O; Nero Germanicus
"Then who does the Constitution say must determine whether the President is eligible. It's not in the 20th Amendment itself."

The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are. It's right there in the Constitution under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three:

"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."

A few notes.

1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.

"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."

2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify", something they may have done on purpose in this instance depending upon the reasons why. National security? Who knows at this point.

3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.

4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.

Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".

Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.

If Congress can essentially ignore and thus "nullify" a provision of the Constitution, what is law? What good is a system of laws that those at the top of the food chain can ignore while suppressing those of us near the bottom through illegitimate enforcement. They derive their powers from the very document that they are ignoring. This is a farce and they must be called on to admit it by facing the truth. Nullification. If they can do it, so can We the People.

45 posted on 03/18/2013 6:36:39 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are.

The Constitution does not say who is responsible for checking the candidate's credentials. It would take legislation passed by Congress to do that. And I'm not aware of any such law being on the books. Maybe there should be, but currently there isn't. So Obama's qualifications or lack there of fall into a grey area. Maybe he is qualified. Maybe he isn't. But he isn't required to provide any more than he has, and there is nobody tasked with looking into it.

46 posted on 03/18/2013 6:57:38 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

I just proved my argument. Ignore the truth or misinterpret all you want on that eight-hour shift of yours.


47 posted on 03/18/2013 7:05:26 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

There has been no finding by any authorized body, judicial or legislative that Barack Obama failed to qualfy under Article 20. He stopped being President-Elect when he took the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day.

A federal judge ruled on this in 2009 in a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States:
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf


48 posted on 03/18/2013 9:04:11 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Judge Carter's comments aren't completely accurate. He says, "The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts." Congress can't remove a president for just "any" reason. The Constitution prescribes a limited set of conditions: treason, bribery, high crimes and/or misdemeanors, but none of these necessarily pertains to eligibility requirements. Second, the Constitution doesn't say that the president can only be removed by Congress, but simply gives an instruction that Congress SHALL remove a president on immpeachment. Being ineligible doesn't mean a high crime or misdemeanor was committed (although it's possible that such could be committed through intentional fraud), nor would eligiblity have to be an impeachment issue.

The Supreme Court ruled in Fairchild v. Hughes that all citizens have a right to a government that is administered according to law. The seating of an ineligible president does not conform to the law (or the Constitution), thus such a person is not technically a "sitting" president. Under Art. III, it is within the judicial power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. This is not a power delegated to Congress. There's no reason that the courts cannot enforce Art. II and the 20th Amendment in order to ensure that all citizens have a government that is run according to law.

49 posted on 03/18/2013 11:57:59 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham


50 posted on 03/19/2013 12:06:59 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson