Posted on 07/20/2009 2:26:53 PM PDT by frog in a pot
This is an open letter to FReepers in the 26 states with Republican Senators and Representatives. FReepers in states with only Republican Representatives are cordially invited to join us.At age 17 he was described as slightly less than 6’ tall, muscular and barrel-chested. Nonetheless, and years before the 1st Amendment right to free speech, 17 year old Benjamin Franklin bravely confronted oppressive government policies with pointed story-telling in his brother’s newspaper. Indeed, brother James was earlier thrown in jail for 3 weeks without trial because he dared to challenge Massachusetts authorities for the way they were handling piracy issues. Later, it was decided Franklin’s newspaper was “mocking religion” and was thereupon required to seek government approval prior to any publication. The newspaper paper later failed.
The point? The Franklins, and many brave Americans to follow, perhaps some in your immediate family, struggled and in many cases paid dearly for our right to speak out and confront oppression!
Bill Clinton is today regarded in many quarters as a respectable man and one who lives a secure and comfortable life supported in part by taxpayer funds. His wife continues to enjoy the benefits of high government office. The outcome might have been far different, however, if his Senate trial had looked at the evidence as did the House in it’s impeachment proceeding. It is believed the Senate trial was not as well presented as it might have been. For instance, only Monica Lewinsky’s video tape and that of Clinton and two of his cronies were heard. Imagine, no cross-examination! It is also believed the fact Hillary Clinton was in possession of 900 FBI files may have concerned many Senators of both parties and their families and colleagues.
The point? Notwithstanding Clinton a) was found guilty of perjury in the impeachment proceedings, b) later fined by a federal judge for pertinent testimony that was “intentionally false”, c) ultimately agreed to put his law license on ice, and d) agreed to pay $850,000 to hush Paula Jones - each on many of the same facts – not a single Democrat Senator voted “guilty” in Clinton’s Senate trial!
Whether or not Obama is qualified, the general public is beginning to understand our nation is again the victim of a scam. His arrogant shell game and his expensive refusal to demonstrate he is a natural born citizen has caused the nation great stress.
Worse, it is undeniable that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are very quickly changing the basic value and character of our nation’s inheritance and culture. If Obama resigns, we are left with Biden and, most likely, Hillary.
The point? We need to disrupt their agenda and try to buy time until we can restore effective balance in our government. At the moment, we are perhaps one serious disaster from losing our nation.
Congress alone had the authority to confirm on January 8, 2009 the results of the presidential election and to declare Obama the President. Likewise, Congress is the single body today with the Constitutional authority to reconsider and correct that action.
Unfortunately, with the current political composition of Congress, it is unlikely any reconsideration will occur without a nudge from the U.S. Supreme Court. The question then is, “What are the most efficient means of getting this issue before the Court?”
The Armed Services, sworn to defend the Constitution, has a clear operational requirement of knowing its Commander in Chief is qualified to issue lawful orders. Suits now in progress by retired and active duty military officers may well reach the Court. Do not forget, the officers forwarding those expensive suits are not seeking money damages!
Such suits may take longer than we wish. More importantly, we should not ask our military to shoulder the entire burden and risk of challenging the mindset that occupies the Oval Office. We must find every opportunity to press forward on every front.
Another means of reaching the Court is via petition brought by a member of Congress who is concerned that the Congress may be performing its duties on the basis of a Constitutional defect. The defect is that Congress failed to discharge its Constitutional and statutory duties on January 8.
The petition set out below summarizes pertinent and indisputable facts and specifically and clearly asks the Congress to take the steps necessary to examine authentic evidence and reconsider its January 8 action. If the Congress is unwilling to take such steps, that may prompt a member of that body to step forward and petition the Court.
We ask each FReeper in the 26 states to send an unsigned copy of the petition to their Republican politicians. Briefly ask in a cover letter how many signatures they would require in order to a) read the petition into the record of their chamber and b) move that Congress take the action requested in the petition. (The petition will fit on one page with a 9 point font; thus, it can be a two page letter.)
The House of Representatives is presently scheduled to leave on summer vacation August 1 and the Senate on August 8. Subject to your schedule, you may decide to mail the letter to your Representative at the state office and the letter to your Senator to the Wash. D.C. address. (There will be a post to all state FReepers with the mailing addresses.)
Perhaps out of all of the Republicans serving in Congress, we will find some willing to recognize they are bound by their own statutes and the Constitution.
Some argue there is not yet a crisis because the Constitution has not yet been tested. If the Court determines it was improper for Congress to disregard its January 8 Constitutional and statutory obligations and Congress does not respond to that determination, there clearly will be a crisis.
******
1ST AMENDMENT PETITION seeking the REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES WHEREAS, at the time of President Obama’s birth his father was not a United States citizen and his mother was a United States citizen under 19 years of age;
WHEREAS, the relevant statute in effect throughout 1961 would not allow United States citizenship at birth to an infant born abroad with such parentage;
WHEREAS, Article II of the United States Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statute and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, the location of President Obama’s birth is a critical element in the determination of whether he is a natural born citizen;
WHEREAS, President Obama recently represented in the case of Hollister v Soetero that he publicly provided to several internet websites a certified copy of his purported birth certificate which purportedly shows a birth in Hawaii;
WHEREAS, the document made public is a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) not an Hawaii birth Certificate; significantly, Hawaii emphasizes its COLB is not conclusive evidence of a birth in Hawaii;
WHEREAS, candidate Obama expended substantial effort and legal expense to defend multiple lawsuits, in an attempt to avoid providing the Certificate of Live Birth underlying the COLB;
WHEREAS, document examiners have identified several unmistakable defects and anomalies in the provided COLB, and conclude that it is a fabricated document, one that immediately violates state and federal felony statutes regarding fraudulent use of forged or altered identification documents;
WHEREAS, if the only assurance candidate Obama provided to state primary election officials that he was an eligible candidate was to sign state-provided certifications, under penalty of perjury, it is possible those officials were subsequently satisfied of the candidate’s eligibility by the COLB;
WHEREAS, Congress was put on notice by numerous voters and groups prior to the November 4, 2008 election of substantial concerns regarding candidate Obama’s Article II eligibility, it is possible members of Congress were satisfied of the candidate’s eligibility by the COLB;
WHEREAS, Congress convened on January 8, 2009 in a Joint Session solely for the purpose of receiving, verifying and tallying the votes of the Electoral College and accepting, or objecting to and where appropriate disqualifying those votes in accordance with 3 USC 15;
WHEREAS, Congress failed to call for objections to any Certificate of Vote presented by the Electoral College during the Joint Session in accordance with 3 USC 15;
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;
WHEREAS, in the face of this extraordinary controversy the citizens of the United States are entitled to know whether the President of the United States satisfies the natural born citizen requirement of Article II;
WHEREAS, the members of Congress are sworn to uphold the United States Constitution;
NOW THEREFORE, we the undersigned request that Congress establish a joint special committee to investigate the question of President Obama’s constitutional eligibility, which shall have the mandate to subpoena and examine forensically all documents, including but not limited to his original certificate of birth, bearing upon such question.
****** The petition can also be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/1st-amendment-petition.html
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.