Posted on 05/01/2013 8:11:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
The Alabama Democrat Party just submitted a completely different birth certificate than the one that was posted at the White House website in 2011.
Larry Klayman, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate that was posted to whitehouse.gov on 4-27-2001 (seen below). Fogbow/Jack Ryan obot group produced another bogus one. Still a third birth certificate has been submitted by Alabama Democrats to the Supreme Court.
Remember, this court is being presided over by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who supported Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, when he believed Obama to be a usurper and denied following orders to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility as part of keeping his oath (ironically Lakin was not supported by Mr. Oathkeeper Stewart Rhodes). Another justice on the court by the name of Tom Parker will also hear the case. He has stated in a previous case:
“McInnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
While the Alabama Democrats attacked the merits of the appeal, calling the evidence by McInnish “inadmissible and not worthy of belief,” they also stated “A county sheriff from Arizona is not an ‘official source’ of anything in Alabama.”
But what stands out in their brief is something very new, Barack Hussein Obama’s long form birth certificate that has a different backing, something never before seen. It’s on page 33 in the document below.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
The MSM and Right Wing Radio Hosts already have this Prostrate Trouble. They laid themselves down for the Won a long time ago.
Jeff, the legislative branch consists of hundreds of elected officers. The executive branch (for all intents and purposes) consists of just one man.
It doesn't take a genius to see why the qualifications for congressional offices wouldn't be quite as restrictive than they would be for the one and only highest office in the land.
A single, or even a handful of congressmen with divided loyalties, would be kept in check by the allegiances of their fellow congressmen. Who's going to keep a President in check?
The proof that the Framers thought this through (and came to the same conclusion) is written in the various qualifications for office in the Constitution. The Framers were meticulous and deliberate in crafting that document. Logic, reason, and history guided them in that task.
Just a quick look at the Twentieth Amendment, Section three proves you are incorrect.
"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."
1. There is no such thing as a “President elect” until such a time that Congress ratifies the results of the electoral college election and someone is determined to have received the majority of votes. It is only then that we know who is actually the “President elect”. Once this occurs, the election is over. The Electoral College is no longer involved once the election is ratified by Congress. The beginning of the second sentence stating “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term” applies to those scenarios where a majority of electoral college votes was not gained by someone meaning that there is no “President elect”.
2. The second part of the second sentence, “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” refers to the actual person identified by the act of Congress ratifying the electoral college results having to “qualify” or Congress is charged with the responsibility of naming a replacement. The “President elect” exist only because he/she received a majority of the electoral college votes and had them ratified by Congress. Now, the Constitution requires him/her to “qualify” for something or Congress names a replacement. The only things left in the Constitution having anything to do with Presidential qualifications are the eligibility requirements from Article two. The wording clearly places the burden of “qualifying” on the President elect. Since Congress must name a replacement, they must be made aware of whether or not they must do so. The only way they can be made aware is by the President elect proving to them he/she meets the eligibility requirements. Lack of proof or non proof is the same thing as “failing to qualify” and Congress must then act.
3. Further proof that the “qualified” in Section Three has nothing to do with the Electoral college is found in the sentence ” 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."
If Congress names someone to act as President, it had nothing to do with the Electoral college results because this person might not have even been on the ballot yet whomever is ultimately selected by Congress still must “qualify”.
Congress did not obey the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and we have been stuck with a usurper now for five years running. They willfully disobeyed their oaths from Article Six to support the Constitution. Your statement as to who has standing to question eligibility is also incorrect. Anyone who took the oath of office from Article Six to support the Constitution has standing to ensure that they are keeping their oath. Ensuring that the Constitution is being fully enforced is keeping their oath to support it and no judge can deny them this duty. Obama’s own legal team argued that Congress is bound by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three in regards to verification of eligibility issues in their attempt to limit the standing of others having the right to do so.
presidential eligibility by Congress
No offense Jeff, but for someone who's supposedly well-versed in this one particular aspect of the Constitution and US history, you sometimes demonstrate a remarkable lack of knowledge about the subject.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"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; ... "
The three Presidents you spoke of were citizens of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, so were exempt from the NBC requirement.
The inclusion of that exemption for the Founding Generation was necessary, as the only Natural Born Citizens in America at that time, were newly born infants. Not a single American, 35 or older, would have qualified as President, without the existence of that exemption.
Now, I really shouldn't have to explain that to you, as it's one of the most well-worn arguments existing in this debate. You've surely been challenged with it many times before.
Don't need to. Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution backs up my reading of the Framers' intent completely.
I'm afraid it's you who should seek a constitutional amendment to change the NBC requirement, so your boss is eligible to hold office.
Sure you are. Just as long as everyone goes along with whatever interpretation allows your boy Obama to legally be President. That's the only 'reality' you're interested in, Fogblower.
Constitutional crises? Maybe to us - a small percentage of voters. There is not one member of Congress stating that we are in any Constitutional crises. Therefore ... until we get serious hearings, investigations and members of Congress calling for impeachment and stating we are in a constitutional crises then it doesn't really exist in a practical sense. It's sad but that's where we are
“1. There is no such thing as a “President elect” until such a time that Congress ratifies the results of the electoral college election and someone is determined to have received the majority of votes.”
Not true!
President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming President of the United States in the period between the general election on Election Day in November and noon eastern standard time on Inauguration Day, January 20, during which he is not in office yet. The title is used for the apparent winner.
Read Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-277).
Exactly. The lame (crippled) argument that we will have a constitutional crisis if 0bastard’s non-eligibility mess is opened up is, IMHO, a conscious ploy to keep the status quo (the ongoing coup).
We have a dreadful constitutional crisis ongoing since 2008. ANd it’s picking up speed.
The "apparent" winner in November is the "apparent" President elect. The Constitution doesn't apply to anyone but the ACTUAL winner as determined by the ratification of the Electoral college votes by Congress. Legally, you don't know exactly who the "actual" President elect is until this has occurred.
And still he (JW) evades the original question that started this whole diatribe...
“Have you even bothered to comment on the fact that the Alabama court has three different Obama birth certificates in front of it?”
It IS the topic of this thread, you know....
You are getting bogged down in VRWC details here. I have already explained this point and no other explanation should be necessary.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3014484/posts?q=1&;page=101
And he's going to keep on evading it. Answering the question about the bc forgeries doesn't serve his pet agenda. Actually, I think he brushed off the whole topic somewhere upthread. Surprising, eh?
Even a hardened old-time Constitutionalist such as myself must admit that these BC's look damn good, unless you get much too close. You wouldn't want a few carelessly misplaced pixels slow down The Socialist Revolution, would you?
The problem, Windflier, is that the meaning of "natural born citizen" was clear to all of the Founders, Framers, and their entire generation. "Natural born" was a known, defined term with a specific meaning. And it simply did not mean what birthers claim it meant.
It is exactly like claiming that when the Constitution says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," the phrase, "the right of the people" doesn't refer to the right of individuals, but to the state governments. So therefore there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
But it doesn't. "PEOPLE" doesn't mean "STATE GOVERNMENTS."
Likewise, "natural born citizen" doesn't mean that citizen parents are required. It never did.
But you and other birthers are determined to change the meaning of a term in the Constitution, or to pretend that it means something other than what it has always meant. And the reason is because you find it convenient to do so, and because you don't like what it actually means.
This is the exact same thing liberals do. It is, in fact, a LIBERAL approach to the Constitution and to law. It is an approach that says, "It doesn't matter what the law meant when it was written. Today it means what I say it means."
That is very amusing! But I thought the History Channel had already determined he is Satan, not God... Perhaps this is evidence that Satan still aspires to be just like God.
What is on the table before us is quite a simple question: Are the documents real or not? Some of the facts are also simple. For example, each of these BC documents has been claimed ... at differing times and places ... to have been the real deal BC.
Next question: Has the Cold Case Posse marshaled enough solid evidence of forgery to warrant the courts, or another investigative body such as a Congressional Committee, to evaluate it?
So far, this is a forgery case. The Alabama court hasn't even gotten that far. The defense is really saying "forgery or not, this is none of Alabama's business."
Longfellow said it: "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all."
Now while the mills are grinding, can we please work on the elections of '14?
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.