Posted on 07/20/2009 2:26:53 PM PDT by frog in a pot
Shameless but passionate bump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2296931/posts
Don't give them a minutes rest on the issue.
bump!!!
I absolutely forgot to tell you that I sent my letters off. I wish this state had some better congress people but we don’t. I’m not expecting much.
Loved your post ~ thanks!
The electoral vote counting act of 1877 does not provide for eligibility challenges to anyone other than the electors.
"WHEREAS, such a call would have provided an opportunity to address the issue of whether the President elect was eligible in accordance with Article II and would have been prerequisite to valid acceptance of any Certificate, nonetheless Congress accepted the votes of the Electoral College without such a call;
See above.
Here are two "whereas" to add that are critical to achieving success.
1. Whereas The Twentieth Amendment, section three requires that Congress name a replacement President in the event of "death" or "failure to qualify" by the President elect, it is necessary to confirm the status of these two things, "death", or "qualification".
2. Whereas the only remaining qualification criteria required for the Presidency within the Constitution is in Article two, it is necessary to confirm eligibility status of the President elect as to age, natural born citizenship, and residency beyond 14 years.
3.Whereas the wording within section three clearly states "or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify", the burden of "qualifying" is on the President elect and The President elect is required to provide evidence of qualifications to the body charged with replacing him if he fails to qualify.
4. Whereas members of Congress swear an oath to "support this Constitution", they are required to enforce all of it's provisions, including section three of the Twentieth amendment.
oops, should have read “four” whereas.
“The electoral vote counting act of 1877 does not provide for eligibility challenges to anyone other than the electors.”
You and I have discussed this previously.
Lets move beyond 1877 to January 6, 2005 when the entire Congress recognized that 3 USC 15 addressed “irregularities” in the voting process.
Senator Boxer and a member of the House of Representative was able to correctly suspend the proceedings of the Joint Session until both Chambers considered the matter and voted to overrule her objection.
The Congress is charged with certifying the results of the election. Any interpretation that limits the authority of Congress to simply challenging the eligibility of the electors improperly limits Congress’ ability to perform its obligation.
Imagine if the electors voted for Mickey Mouse, would Congress and the nation be bound?
Yes. At least until he is required to provide proper evidence to Congress that he is eligible.
As an aside, I would wager a handsome sum that many of us would prefer Mickey Mouse to the present occupant.
“Yes. At least until he is required to provide proper evidence to Congress that he is eligible.”
And, in 1948 the Congress decided with 3 USC 15 how they would present that requirement to the President elect.
“As an aside, I would wager a handsome sum that many of us would prefer Mickey Mouse to the present occupant.”
If you can find anyone to take that bet, I will back your play! {;^)
I like it - I’ll send this along to my 1 Conservative Senator (DeMint), my 1 very liberal RINO (gramnesty) and my Republican Representative. Thanks for putting this together.
We need to disrupt their agenda and try to buy time until we can restore effective balance in our government.
Agreed! Throw everything we can think of at them to keep them off balance. Much like they are currently doing to us.
....a brave man full of integrity and honor ......
... The greatest of Americans.
Obama would help himself immeasurably by seeking counsel from Sam Johnson in all things....
I have no problem with gumming up the works however we can even if it doesn't fully succeed in removing Obama from power. Hopefully that is your goal as well. But if your goal is to have a dem Congress attempt to remove Obama from power - of course that is nuts.
“But if your goal is to have a dem Congress attempt to remove Obama from power - of course that is nuts.”
Thank you for your cordial reply.
If you take a second look at the original post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2296931/posts
you will understand the goal is to give the minority a shot at the USSC.
If the Court agrees but the Dem-controlled Congress fails to take responsibile action - as was the case in the Clinton Senate trial - then those who may now be unsure of what is happening will understand precisely what we are facing.
I saw that but don’t get it. Perhaps you are way ahead of me on process .. so a member of Congress petitions the SC then what? Absolutely nothing IMO. If the goal is to garner headlines then maybe thats good (as I said I am all for gumming up the works or slowing them down) but I see zero prospects of the SC doing much in response to a petition sent in by a single member of Congress.
If it works then Ron Paul should be sending in petitions every week.
Your About Page states:
“I welcome ideas on how we can make progress in defeating liberalism...”
When does that kick in?
“Perhaps you are way ahead of me on process ..”
That seems possible.
Although you are certainly entitled to your view that the Court will not do much on a petition by a single member.
But then I did not limit it to, nor even contemplate, a petition by a single member.
Have a nice evening.
Yes good ideas are always welcome. You made the call to arms with your idea and I simply stated my opinion that I do not see the SC responding to a petition. If you wish to explain with how it could work including an example of when the SC took action based on petitions - go ahead. And stop with the petty insults - there’s no need for that.
“And stop with the petty insults - there’s no need for that.”
You set the tone with your ‘nuts” comment, pal.
Nowhere do I suggest the USSC review a petition. Recommend you reread the post above.
So — your goal IS to have the SC respond to a petition by a Congressman (or two) and then order the democratic controlled Congress to remove Obama from office? Is that what you hope to accomplish? If so - then yes, that is absolutely nuts and will never happen. The SC doesn’t respond to petitions. Even if they did I am not sure what you think would happen next. This dem Congress is not going to remove Obama from office no matter what is uncovered.
Sorry you are so hyper-defensive about your idea but you haven’t laid out a plan or a rationale for it. And I am not sure why you are so upset.
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.