Posted on 10/27/2013 9:54:40 PM PDT by rocco55
Notice of Commission of (i) a Felony Cognizable by a Court of the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 4 - Misprision of Felony and (ii) Treason against the United States as required by 18 U.S.C. 2382 - Misprision of Treason and Motion to Seal Document
COMES NOW Douglas Vogt: (i) pursuant to the obligations placed upon him by 18 U.S.C. 4 and 2382, upon both his Public and Sealed Affidavits attached hereto, and gives the requisite notice of the commission of felonies and/or treason by the following described persons cognizable by a Court of the United States and (ii) pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), moves the Court for an order sealing his attached envelope containing his Sealed Affidavit marked with the case caption and the phrase "FILED UNDER SEAL", and states as follows:
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies
Skip to First Half of Provisions | Skip to Second Half of Provisions
Section
The courts have consistently ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and that he is the president. No court has ever ruled otherwise. Congress has sent him about 700 bills to sign into law and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of his appointees, some were confirmed unanimously.
Barnett, Keyes, et. al v Obama, et. al., US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Here's part of the discussion on the TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS that conveniently got lost from the final resolution. IIRC, there was more on them agreeing to the definition on Leahy's first posting on his site than is shown here. Scrubba dub dub. The bottom line is the usurper agreed to the born on US soil of two US citizen parents. As did Hillary. As did McCaskill who has tried numerous times to throw out NBC from the Constitution.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25337874/SR511-Technically-a-Dfinition-of-NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242VERMONT
Senators: McCain Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen’
Senators Introduce ResolutionTo Make Clear Senate’s Position On Candidate’s Status
WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 2008) – Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and ClaireMcCaskill (D-Mo.) today introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senatethat presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a ‘naturalborn Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for President.In February, published a report calling into question the legality of McCain’s presidential run. McCain was born to American citizens stationed on anAmerican Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. He has since served in the U.S. Navy,and, since 1983, has served in the U.S. Congress.“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that SenatorMcCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimousresolution of the Senate.”“It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,”said McCaskill. “I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodnesssakes.”At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland SecuritySecretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts thatMcCain was eligible to serve as President.“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents,you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.The text of the resolution and Leahy’s remarks follow.
TH CONGRESS 2 D S ESSION
S. RES. __
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
_______________ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs.CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred tothe Committee on _______________
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Officeof the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1,is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limitthe constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the militarynor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced bythe First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced bythe men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our nationalborders;Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an Americanmilitary base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution
April 10, 2008
Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express thecommon sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen,” as theterm is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains threerequirements for a person to be eligible to be President – the person must have reachedthe age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural bornCitizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving inWashington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was born outside of the officialborders of the United States.John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base inthe Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purposeand intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement. As far as I am aware, no one hasunearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rightsof children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view wouldserve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on theunderstanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believedthat if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are naturalborn citizens.It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney,was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to bePresident. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became theState of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they wereeligible to assume the office of the President. The same is true today.Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that SenatorMcCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland SecurityMichael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not.I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committeehearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record.I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator"
That describes procedure, nothing regarding a determination of eligibility.
Art II is plain English, so in section 19 it is either clear that the President “elect” is eligible or not.
“Elect” means chosen. It does not mean “eligible”
I went back a couple sections to get context. The link to section 17 is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/17 and you can go to the next section by changing the last number in that link to 18, and then to 19, etc.
Nowhere in there does it say that Congress determines whether the President elect is able to discharge the duties or qualified to be President. And in fact, Section 15 says that a state’s electoral votes may NOT be rejected unless both Houses of Congress agree that the votes have not been regularly given by properly-certified electors:
“and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. “
IOW, if the state has certified its electors, Congress HAS to accept the votes.
Looking back to section 6, which gives the way that states have to certify their electors, it says (using a lot of words...) that the executive of the state is to list the electors and the numbers showing that those electors were properly chosen, AND if there are any controversies over which electors should be properly chosen the executive of the state is responsible to follow the state’s legal protocols to resolve those controversies and then communicate (certify to Congress) how those controversies were resolved. Here’s the text:
“and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made”
Keep in mind that if the state certifies the electors without pointing out unresolved controversies, Section 16 says that Congress HAS to accept those electoral votes. The place for controversies to be resolved is through the means that each State lays out for contesting the electors chosen. In Florida in 2000, the avenue was the courts. The specific question was over what the actual vote result was, but if somebody wanted to challenge the selection of those electors based on the fact that they were pledged to an ineligible candidate, it would presumably also go through the courts. It is NOT in the hands of Congress. Section 15 REQUIRES Congress to accept the electoral votes that are properly certified by a State. Congress can object and debate but in the end the statute says that they HAVE to accept the electoral votes if the State lawfully certified them.
But even if Congress DID have the power to reject a State’s electoral votes based on something like eligibility, Section 17 says that debate over an objection can last 2 hours, max. Congress has no more ability to force the production of citizenship records than you or I do. Yet in 2 hours they are supposed to determine whether somebody is Constitutionally eligible? They have no factual basis on which to make their decision.
Let’s say that Ted Cruz gets electoral votes. Somebody in Congress objects to the certification of those votes because they say he is ineligible. What then? Congress debates for 2 hours and then votes on what “natural born citizen” means? That flies in the face of all the principles of separation of powers and the duties laid out for each of the branches. Congress didn’t even try to do anything binding about the issue when they declared McCain eligible; they made it a non-binding resolution, meaning they all knew it was just a bunch of opinions that carry no legal weight whatsoever. Yet the decision of whether Arnold Schwartzneggar can be President would get 2 hours of bloviating by Congress and that would be all the protection we the people can get?
I don’t believe the Founders meant that, for a minute.
But the text of Section 15 makes it clear that Congress does NOT have the discretion to refuse a State’s electoral votes because they claim a candidate is ineligible. If eligibility is to be hashed out solely by the electoral vote, then the battle has to be carried out in the states, and most probably within the States’ judicial systems. Congress does NOT have the power to determine Presidential eligibility. It is NOT a “political question”.
When has SCOTUS said that NBC is a political question?
People may chose an ineligible person due to lack of information, perhaps intentionally withheld; their choice does not make an ineligible person eligible.
This is not a democracy, this is a republic. Rule of law, not rule of majority.
Put another way, popularity does not launder ineligibility.
Exactly, and he can’t act as POTUS until he is “qualified”.
Usagi_yo was “zotted” not too long ago, although that sentence appears to have been watered down to a mere timeout.
He/she has a history of commenting to the effect that it’s the will of the popular vote and or action/inaction (aka complicity) of Congress and the Electoral College alone which determine eligibility for the presidency. Never mind that 2/3 of the States must ratify any change to the Constitution, and that Section 3 of the 20th Amendment has never been publicly demonstrated to have been satisfied by Team “Obama.”
Hope that clarifies thing.
Which is why the 20th Amendment says that a President elect - somebody who has received the electoral votes necessary to become President - cannot ACT as President if they have failed to qualify. The Constitution itself has the power to keep an unconstitutional President from taking any Presidential action, even if the people have elected that unconstitutional person. Same thing with a Vice-President elect.
Article II does not distinguish between ineligibility prior to an election or after. If after “acting as president” it is determined that the person fails to meet Constitutional requirements they are legally disqualified and removed.
What do the nine references to “eligible” in Section 19 refer to?
And I would add this, also: Congress alone can remove a sitting President, but one of the reasons to impeach and remove someone is Constitutional disability - their inability to do the duties of the Presidency. If a court declared Obama unable to “act as President” because he failed to qualify according to the 20th Amendment’s requirements, Obama would not be able to do any Presidential actions, somebody else would have to act as President (and that would have to be determined by the court, to see if Obama ever WAS President since he was never eligible to be President), and Congress would presumably remove Obama because he is disabled from doing anything Presidential.
Congress would be the ones removing Obama, but they would do it after/because the courts had ruled him Constitutionally disabled from carrying out his Presidential duties.
The Obama thugsters have relied, all along, on the argument that it is nobody’s dang business if we have an unconstitutional Commander in Chief/President. And that is the insult of insults. As long as they screw us all equally it’s nobody’s business. Rape everybody, and then nobody can charge you with rape... And soldiers don’t suffer any particular damage from having a foreign enemy combatant as their CINC. By the time they’ve suffered “particularized harm” they are already dead and Obama is dancing over their graves.... According to the courts of the United States of America. (spit)
“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;”
“Shall be eligible” is a mandatory imperative. A person who is not a natural born citizen can not ever be 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.”
A person who is not 35 years old and 14 years a resident can not ever be president.
It is for the Judiciary to determine facts and apply law. They are the only Branch thus empowered.
They refer to the people who would “act as President” if the elected POTUS can’t act as President. The title of that section is “3 USC § 19 - Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act”. That part is not about the electoral certification. It doesn’t mention Congress’ certification of the electoral vote at all, and has no connection to anything mentioned in the previous sections.
It is saying that if there is nobody who is able to “act as President” (for instance, if the courts had found that BOTH the President elect and Vice-President elect had “failed to qualify” and were not able to “act as President”), this is the order in which a person would be offered the ability to “act as President”, IF THEY QUALIFIED - meaning they are “not under disability to discharge the duties” of the Presidency. Being ineligible to be President (not NBC, not at least 35, and not a resident for at least 14 years) is a Constitutional DISABILITY.
It’s a political question because SCOTUS has opined the natural born citizenship definition is not specific and not justiciable. A complainant with a particularized injury can object to the laws and regulations implemented by a usurper, but the Court cannot order the removal of a usurper without a conviction of impeachment or a declaration of incompetence by the President’s cabinet.
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.