Posted on 09/25/2009 12:36:14 PM PDT by pissant
I fully agree with everything in your post beginning and ending with your first line:
“That post of yours is the most outrageous, irrational analysis I have ever read.”
...............and it would have been settled a year ago.
Either the Constitution means what it says or it does not. Show the birth certificate
W R O N G !
The Twentieth amendment, section three plainly states:
”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.”
Basically, this passage ORDERS CONGRESS to verify TWO things before allowing a President elect to become President.
1. Is he alive?
2. Does he "qualify?"
If the answer to either of these two questions is "NO", Congress is instructed to seat a replacement who must also meet both of these conditions successfully, "alive", and "qualified".
Since the Constitution itself orders Congress to seat a replacement, Congress MUST know whether or not to do so. This means that the President elect MUST provide PROOF of being "qualified" to Congress or he isn't allowed to be President.
The words, "or, if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places the burden of "qualifying" upon the "President elect" as he can only fail at something He has tried to do. There is only one set of non-health related "requirements" for a "President elect" to "qualify" for in the Constitution, those being the eligibility requirements.
To prove age you need a proper birth certificate. To prove "natural born" citizenship you need a proper birth certificate. Congress, or any member therein can demand to see a proper birth certificate at any time these so choose in order to satisfy the requirements made of them in section three. Did they? If so, lets see what was provided. If not, we do not have a legal President.
way to step all over your own dick noob. pissant did NOT write this. it was not ‘his’ rubbish. good God.
Well then the former President of the Senate and the current Chief Justice of the SCOTUS failed to do their job.
So it’s our fault for asking? Typical liberal logic.
We don't know the answer to that question. I asked Senator Vitter in a town hall meeting whether or not we, as citizens, have the right to know if someone claiming to be our "President" is legally able to occupy the office.
He didn't answer the question.
Was David Vitter’s town hall meeting on Canal Street?
“Your not going to make any headway on this site”
You’re not going to make any headway in this site without learning at least a little about the site.
“You have got to kidding?”
Before you post, preview. Your credibility suffers with posts like this.
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.