Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Tau Food

If the voters decided that Vladimir Putin should be the US President, would that be a violation of the US Constitution which says that only a natural born US citizen is eligible to be President, and that if a “President elect” (that is, one already chosen by the electors) fails to qualify by the beginning of the term he/she may not “act as President”?

The 20th Amendment makes absolutely clear that what you are saying is unconstitutional, because it directly provides for the situation where the voters have made their choice and the person they chose DOES NOT QUALIFY. The 20th Amendment clearly says that the person they chose - but who fails to QUALIFY - must NOT act as President.

To go with your view would allow a simple majority in a Presidential election to UNDO THE 20TH AMENDMENT - that is, to AMEND what the Constitution means, in contradiction to what the ratified 20th Amendment says. What you are saying is that a simple majority vote of the public can reverse the meaning of a Constitutional amendment.

Can a simple majority in a national vote get rid of the freedom of press, or any of the other Constitutional amendments? Because - after all - the voters are the ones given the task of interpreting the Constitution, right? All the stuff we Americans have been told about the 3 branches of government with their respective roles of making law, implementing law, and interpreting law.... is all a bunch of hooey, right? Really it’s all just the average ordinary illiterate bum on the street who is supposed to do all those things, whenever they vote. Right? ‘Cause that’s what you sure seem to be saying.


657 posted on 03/09/2013 6:49:01 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion
If the voters decided that Vladimir Putin should be the US President, would that be a violation of the US Constitution which says that only a natural born US citizen is eligible to be President, and that if a “President elect” (that is, one already chosen by the electors) fails to qualify by the beginning of the term he/she may not “act as President”?

Well, most of us are living in the real world and in the real world, the voters would not find that Vladimir Putin is qualified to be president. But, I will entertain your imaginary hypothetical long enough to say that if the American people did find him qualified and did vote for him and their electors did choose him, then he would become president. The Congress could then remove him.

In the same spirit, maybe you should consider a hypothetical. Suppose that space aliens were to inhabit the bodies of each member of the Supreme Court and that they were bound and determined to destroy our constitutional framework. Under those circumstances, would you still think that the Supreme Court should have a major role in reviewing the qualifications of all presidential candidates?

Maybe we're wasting our time imagining hypotheticals that involve Putin and space aliens.

I know you sincerely believe that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president, although it's never been real clear to me why you are so certain of that belief. If you were afforded a courtroom to prove your case, I don't believe you would show up with so much as one witness who could competently testify that Obama was born anywhere but in the United States and I don't believe you would show up with so much as one witness who could testify as a witness to his conception. I don't think you really know where any of our presidents were born or who their fathers were other than what you've read in books written by people you don't even know.

The harsh reality is that the voters and their electors heard the arguments that Obama was not born in the U.S. and heard the arguments concerning his paternity and its relevance and after hearing all that, the voters and electors rejected your theories and facts. You are entitled to believe that they were wrong to reject your claims, , but the important fact is that they did not think they were wrong and they were entrusted by the Constitution to make the call.

If it is of any consolation to you, try to remind yourself that, aside from what you've read or heard, you haven't got the slightest idea whether any our prior presidents were "natural born citizen" no matter how you define that term. Uncertainty may be uncomfortable at times, but it's an unavoidable aspect of our human experience. Uncertainty is unavoidable, but you choose the level of misery that you experience because of it.

689 posted on 03/09/2013 11:30:31 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion

I think that you are forgetting that it is the vote of the Electors that decides who is President. In 2000 no candidate received a simple majority of the popular vote. Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but Bush won in the electoral college with a majority of the Electors.
There have been a few other elections where no candidate got a simple majority. You need a majority of the Electors, then you need to have your Electoral votes certified in a Joint Session of Congress where one Representative and one Senator can raise an objection to Vladimir Putin’s Electoral votes. I’m betting that Rand Paul and Michelle Bachman, at the very least would object to Vladimir Putin claiming to be born in America.
Barack Obama, on the other hand has two verifications of his birth in Hawaii from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Hawaii Director of Health, one confirmation from Loretta Fuddy the current Director of Health, three Letters of Verification from Dr. Onaka, Hawaii state Registrar, confirmations from former Governor Linda Lingle and current Governor Neil Abercrombie, a House of Representatives Resolution stating that he was born in Hawaii which passed the House 378-0 (H. Res. 593, 111th Congress, 2009) and ten state and federal court decisions explicitly or implicitly declaring him to be a natural born citizen. Here’s an excerpt from one of the ten:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
All told, there have been 201 original jurisdiction challenges to Obama’s eligibility, 70 state and federal appellate level rulings and 24 appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, no ruling has found Obama to be ineligible or to not qualify as a natural born citizen.

I sincerely doubt that Vladimir Putin could amass that much support for his status as a natural born citizen.


690 posted on 03/09/2013 11:32:31 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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