Posted on 12/17/2008 10:05:48 AM PST by autumnraine
I read a post the other day that a Freeper got from Congressman John Linder, Georgia, stating that he would stand and object to Obama if he doesn't show proof of constitutional eligibility.
I emailed Mr. Linder and asked if he did indeed write that email and if he was serious about holding Obama to task on something as serious as this.
A few moments ago I received a phone call from Congressman Linder's office confirming that he intends to do exactly that and he is just as intent as us on verifying Obama's eligibility.
I told his staffer (very nice lady) that I was proud of him and that I appreciated his bravery as I know he is going against the tide with this.
She said that she herself was concerned as she had to show full, long form documentation to even work in the building for a Congressman and we shouldn't be told to just take someone's word for an office as important as POTUS.
Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know that at least one Congressman is standing up to this, even if the SCOTUS doesn't have the nerve to examine what would seem to be a reasonable question.
A bill requiring all receiving electoral votes to submit proof of eligibility as per Constitutional requirements, prior to Congressional certification, under penalty of disqualification, would suffice.
Why not do it now?
Linder’s apparently a REAL stand-up guy. At least there is one in the House of the People.
You don’t even need to be a citizen to get a passport. I used to date a Serbian woman who was a resident alien who had an American passport.
Outstanding! I hope some other Congressmen will stand with him on this.
Bump
I'd support it, though I don't know if it'd be Constitutional since the electoral votes have already been cast. But regardless, someone should take the lead and try and get legislation passed to prevent future elections from having this issue.
WHAT!!!????
A conservative with a spine!!???
YAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!
Holy cow. A real whacko.
Geez, I hope that Congressman John Linder doesn’t get squashed flat by the Obama Juggernaut and all its henchmen.
Finally someone with the stones to stand up for the Constitution.
Too bad there’s no brain attached to that spine.
McConnell or maybe Saxby Chambliss. I think McConnell is the only one with enough guts.
Now we need one Senator.
Sorry. You are wrong about that. I posted the part of the Constitution that deals with elections above. Go read it. The House controls the election only in the case of a tie or no candidate getting a majority of the EC votes. That's not at issue here. In a "normal" election the House and Senate meet jointly, presided over by the President of the Senate, (Chenney) to count the EV's.
Here is some background on one election that was disputed.
On February 12, 1817, the House and Senate met in joint session to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President. The count proceeded without incident until the roll came to the last state to be counted, Indiana. At that point, Representative John W. Taylor of New York objected to the counting of Indiana's votes. The Senate withdrew, and then the House deliberated upon Taylor's objection. To understand Taylor's objection, however, the reader will need some background:
Congress had passed an enabling act for the Territory of Indiana on April 19, 1816. It authorized the Territory to hold a constitutional convention for forming a state government and stated that the state, once formed, would be admitted to the United States. On December 11, 1816, Congress passed a joint resolution stating that Indiana had formed a state constitution on June 29, 1816, which had met the conditions of the enabling act and that Indiana was therefore admitted into the Union.
According to the Constitution, the casting of ballots by the Electoral College had to take place on a single day, and federal statute had set that day to be December 4, 1816. Taylor thus contended that the electoral votes had been cast by the Territory of Indiana, not the State of Indiana, and were thus void. Other representatives contradicted Taylor, asserting that the joint resolution merely recognized that Indiana had already joined the Union by the act of forming a state constitution and government.
These representatives pointed out that both the House and Senate had seated members from Indiana who had been elected prior to the joint resolution, which would have been unconstitutional had Indiana not been a state at the time of their election.
Representative Samuel D. Ingham then moved that the question be postponed indefinitely. The House agreed almost unanimously, and the Senate was brought back in to count the electoral votes from Indiana.
Holy cow! An Obama propagandist!
Thanks, Jack. I caught your post after I hit “Post” myself. Happens sometimes.
John Linder is my Rep. I’m so proud of him! I sent him an email praising his bravery and in standing up for the Constitution. A truly great man.
This is getting better and better.
As to legislation, again, one member -- does he sit on the relevant committee? Would a Democrat chairman of said committee bring a bill up for committee debate, pass it on to full debate in the House, should it pass, then get it through the Senate??
On all these BC threads, I have attempted to make the point that we are long past the "say so" method when it comes to certifying candidates meet the Constitutional requirements for federal office. If they cannot get proper procedural legislation passed in Congress, then the legislature of each state ought to pass something, at the very least, the party hierarchy ought to have some method whereby one's citizenship is verified, in the case of presidential nomination, that the candidate is indeed natural-born.
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.