Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
“Orly needs to get someone to proof read her filings.”
What has spelling have to do with it?
In my limited legal experience, a motion to dismiss is standard MO.
It’s “proofread.” One word.
No proof of harm? A bank book or a brokerage statement should be proof enough. Next year, 1040 tax tables ought to do it as well.
Yeah big shocker. Why would we expect anything less from this usurper fraud...
Every April 15th the federal government collects tax receipts.
This is done under direction of Criminal Obama as CEO.
As he's not lawfully President this is how many counts of theft from one private citizen by another private citizen?
More to the point - can anybody explain how Criminal Obama’s taking tax revenue is NOT an individual injury?
Just wondering.
I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" ”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.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” 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.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
The president gets sued all the time. When the suit involves his duties as president then the Justice Department acts in his defense.
That pretty much sums it up. One would hope that would change before the 2012 election.
So the DOJ won’t prosecute Black Panthers who intimidate voters with nightsticks, but WILL protect a president from the necessity of satisfying constitutional requirements. Ain’t it great to live in a formerly free country??!!
Watch them.
What about the Constitution being harmed or injured?
Even though “birthers” continue to be dismissed as nuts, the question remains, Why the secrecy? It certainly ought to be up to the president to prove that he is eligible for the job, not for the people to have to dig up the evidence that he isn’t. Even an birth certificate that proved O was born in the USA wouldn’t clear up all the questions about his citizenship, passports, etc. Time for him to live up to his “transparency” claim, or resign.
yep - but, prior to this DOJ involvement, O has used PRIVATE attys (big guns, but private) and NOW the DOJ is stepping in? The fire is about to FLASH!
Damn good question. If there was nothing there, why would they waste the time and resources to fight it even before it gets to court?
he DOJ doth protest too much, methinks.
One can argue strategy, but this seems to me to be a very odd one.
Why not simply produce all of the vital records from Hawaii, if those exist, and simply quash the questions about the Kenyan Clown's birthplace?
But this is NOT a suit about what he has done as President; this is a suit about his qualification to BE President. He is not who he purports to be.
Suppose an individual were to be an Impostor, posing as Pres. BO, having knocked off the Original. If someone discovered that and sought to have the court remove the Impostor from office, would you expect DOJ to defend him? This is no different, IMO.
Using that logic, if Osama bin Laden or Hugo Chavez were to pull a Hussein and usurp high office in America and deliberately run the country into the ground, no American would have any standing to sue and show how they’ve been greatly harmed by it.
The audacity to say that no one has standing is the equivalent of saying “I hate America.” But you already knew that. ALL Americans have standing. It’s still We The People, right?
The only way you Obama worshipers can justify anything is by pretending the Constitution doesn’t exist and by perpetually raising your middle finger at the American people.
And the people of the United States are to have no voice at all?
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.