Posted on 11/20/2008 3:46:28 AM PST by dascallie
“The EC also has to elect the Vice President, so they’d still have the problem of who to replace Biden with.”
Read Post # 136 - sorry, its long ...
We must not allow the moral emphasis of this argument to be inverted. All this speculation, correct or not; has come about because this lying crypto-marxist thug from the most corrupt environs of leftist Chicago sewer politics has ascended to POTUS-elect status with the willing aquiescence of the MSM. The MSM was hell-bent on concealing this usurper’s background because they wanted him to be elected. Now, in a classic case of blame the messenger, those of us who belive in the constitution are being reviled for insisting that a POTUS comply with a basic requirement that most of us unhesitatingly conform with when seeking a driver’s license.
The arrogance and effrontery of this lying bastid is breathtaking. The founders knew that they were not natural born citizens, so they had to include language in Art II Sec 1 that exempted THEM. Does this fraud think that he is better than Washington, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson in that sense? Apparently he does, and with the acquiesence of enough people, he will suceed in usurping and corrupting the Executive Branch of government. This situation presents the very real posssibility of impelling this great nation beyond a constitutional crisis toward a civil war.
Finally, consider the implications of a man who would undertake these devious machinations to knowingly assume an office that he has no constitutional claim to, and than to see this same counterfeit president elect take an oath to defend that constitution. I believe that such a man would be willing to impose ANY sort or despotism or tyranny upon us to retain power.
I don’t believe your #2 is supported by the language of the Constitution as amended. Specifically, what language supports your assertion?
I don’t believe the Constitution gives any authority for an election to be declared null and void, or a new election to be conducted. Where do you think it does?
But I can see the application of the 25th Amendment that you suggest. I had always assumed the language there (removal from office) referred to impeachment only.
Its also been stated that MI5 has it.
If Obama is inaugurated he will be open to blackmail by any number of foreign powers.
“Uh, I believe they meet in a conference and discuss all cases submitted and decide which ones to take. I will almost bet my life they will not take this one.”
The thing is, at some point, SOME judge will surely ask to see his birth certificate. And that will be the end of that, since its about a 99% certainty that it discloses Kenya as his birthplace.
“I don’t believe your #2 is supported by the language of the Constitution as amended. Specifically, what language supports your assertion?
I don’t believe the Constitution gives any authority for an election to be declared null and void, or a new election to be conducted. Where do you think it does?
But I can see the application of the 25th Amendment that you suggest. I had always assumed the language there (removal from office) referred to impeachment only.”
For other FReepers, this concerns Post #136 ...
That is exactly the problem ... there have been NO provisions made for such a contingency - either in the Constitution or SPECIFICALLY legislated in U.S. Law. These are uncharted waters for something that slipped through the cracks.
FIRST, A PRIMER ...
The ONLY provision I have found lies in United States Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15.
Legislation by Congress is provided for in the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Anyway, USC Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15 states that objections may be made during the electoral vote count in Congress on 6 January. It does NOT state what the nature of the objections may be ...
Every objection MUST be made in writing AND signed by AT LEAST 1 Senator AND 1 Representative.
The House and the Senate then adjourn to make a decision. There is NO mention in the rules for how the decision is made - but it is probably a vote.
Then, they come back and continue the electoral vote count.
HOWEVER:
NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution is this method of procedure mandated. USC Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15 is just a law that Congress enacted.
Also, Section 15 DOES NOT specify as to how a candidate’s eligibility would be determined (if such an objection were allowed).
IF the House and the Senate vote the objection on party lines, despite clear and convincing evidence that a candidate is not qualified, there is NOTHING to prevent them from doing so.
This has NEVER been tested as to constitutionality. SCOTUS MIGHT declare this process unconstitutional under the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.
SO MUCH FOR THAT ...
Now, I based my scenarios on the following:
The Constitution, as written
USC Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15
Blackstone’s Commentaries on English Common Law
The Founding Fathers’ concept of “original intent”
Common Sense (human common sense, not Thomas Payne’s)
If SCOTUS were to take the case and declare that Obama was ineligible, there is then the question of remedy (my scenarios).
In scenario #2, Obama has been certified, but not sworn in.
What would SCOTUS do? Citizens DO NOT LIKE fixed contests, so there are 2 remedies:
Order a new GENERAL election (which would be time-consuming AND expensive), or
Declare the election null and void (I mean by this, the electoral vote count) and then go back to scenario #1. This would be the easiest and most equitable solution of the two.
The reasoning is the concept of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” ... Obama’s DQ also DQs his electors and their votes in the Electoral College are also DQ’d.
SCOTUS NEEDS to put itself in the Founding Fathers’ shoes ... what would they HAVE done if this situation arose in their time? This is the concept of “original intent”.
SCOTUS NEEDS to look to the Constitution and legislated U.S. Law and they are BOTH extremely lacking in specific language.
The ONLY bit of help is in Article, Section 1, Clause 3 where it specifies “natural born” citizen. However, it is not clearly defined anywhere. Thus, SCOTUS NEEDS to go back to “original intent”. What did the Founding Fathers mean by “natural born”?
Please re-read Amendment XX. It is extremely clear on one important point: If the President-elect fails to qualify, then the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until a President is qualified.
You said the VP-elect becomes President-elect. That is incorrect by the plain wording of XX.
No need for a new election, or voiding the first one. Obama is not President-elect until the Electoral College votes. He is President-elect from Dec 15 to Jan 20 at noon. That’s the window we’re talking about when he would be ruled not qualified. If that were the case, then XX would control the outcome.
My conclusion, because neither of us has found enabling legislation authorizing anyone to qualify a President in case the President-elect fails to qualify, is that we would have Acting President Biden for four years.
Having said all that, in my opinion, the USSC will conference on Dec 5 and decide to not take the case. I reserve the right to be wrong.
“My conclusion, because neither of us has found enabling legislation authorizing anyone to qualify a President in case the President-elect fails to qualify, is that we would have Acting President Biden for four years.”
Potayto .. Potahto ...
You are correct that, if by the time that the term of the new POTUS begins, and the President-Elect has failed to qualify - then the VP-Elect becomes acting POTUS.
You are using semantics - if the President-Elect is DQ’d prior to 20 January, the VP-Elect would most likely be called the “Presumed President-Elect” until a new President-Elect shall have qualified.
As for your assertion that Biden would be acting POTUS for four years after 20 January - hogwash ...
If SCOTUS ruled Obama ineligible after 20 January, they would consider the election to be based upon the perpetration of a fraud.
They would DQ ALL of Obama’s electors and throw it back to the Electoral College, this time with McCain electors replacing Obama’s. They would then vote, and McCain would become POTUS.
Biden would LIKELY remain VP, since he WAS eligible, but he would NOT be acting POTUS for four years ... “Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree” doctrine.
Where is this in the Constitution, you say? ... IT AIN’T, but neither have we ever had a situation like this before.
SCOTUS would be flying by the seat of its pants and would settle this based on the concept of the Founding Fathers’ “original intent”.
SCOTUS would set the election back as if Obama had NEVER been on the ballot since, as a matter of law, he NEVER was - he was ineligible ...
Now the question becomes whether or not she was legally married at the time to BHO, Sr. I tend to doubt it, since he was already inconveniently married at the time to a Kenyan woman (perhaps two) who had borne him children. OTOH, under British law, there is (or was) such a thing as a "Tribal Marriage" which wasn't recognized by the Crown. If that's the case, perhaps Mother Stanley Dunham WAS legally married to BHO, Sr.
Frankly, if the Holy One were born in Kenya, bastardy might be a better alternative in making a case for American citizenship. It's times like this when I really miss Johnny Cochrane, or better yet, Algonquin J. Calhoun, Obama's rhetorical mentor.
Amendment XX is pretty clear.. It doesn't make anyone in the President in the event of disqualification, but it would make Joey Plugs ACTING President.
In other news from the capital,
And may you live in interesting times.
I don't miss him. I have every episode.
That's what I've been saying, and it's an important point. The huge problem is that Congress has failed to create any enabling legislation that would authorize anyone to qualify a President to replace an Acting President after the President-elect has failed to qualify.
That's why I've been saying we'd have Biden as Acting President for four years (if Obama becomes President-elect and THEN fails to qualify.)
So now waddawedo?
I’ve made a lot of posts on this subject, and on at least one of those, I’ve added that, IMO, the USSC is not going to rule Obama unqualified.
So, IMO, we’re not going to have the 20th come into play.
These are all ‘what if’ questions.
But if the USSC rules between 12/15 and 1/20 that Obama is not qualified, then we’d have Biden for Acting President for four years. What we do is deal with that, and rejoice for the late night comedians. They would love making fun of Biden every night.
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.