Replies

Will someone state unequivocally that Barack Obammy is constitutionally elgible to serve as POTUS!!

AND on what grounds?

Just asking as a concerned citizen. Should I pay my taxes, comply with federal laws draped over my life like a submarine net, or disregard all as Obama slices and dices any respect I might have had toward our benevolent government?

Just please, some honesty from someone.

1) Vice President Dick Cheney counted and certified Obama’s 378 Electoral College votes without objection from any of 535 members of Congress. Any one congressman and any one Senator could have submitted written objections to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes and an investigation would have had to be held. No one objected.
2)The 12th Amendment to the Constitution is unequivocal, whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College “SHALL BE PRESIDENT.”
3) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama in which is a constitutional requirement before exercising the powers of the office.
4)Federal judges have ruled Obama to be eligible in a number of lawsuits and appeals. While it would be too much to post their complete decisions here; some excerpts will have to suffice:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010

“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). 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 Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009

“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.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009