Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: arrogantsob
"No actually the Court has neither of those powers. They remain with the Congress. It is Congress which validates the election. Remember the dweebs trying to get the Congress to rule W was not elected?...When the Congress accepts the electoral votes and certifies them there is nothing that can remove a president other than impeachment and conviction."

Congress can not make somebody eligible who isn't. If they attempt to, they are complicit in the fraud, whether it's deliberate or through ignorance.

Where the left is getting any ground on this it's through the lack of clarity on the term "Natural Born Citizen," which allows the waters to be muddied.

Suppose for a moment that the issue at hand was not Obama's NBC Status, but his age, which is also a Constitutional requirement, but a much more easily defined one.

Suppose that Obama was actually 33, and didn't meet the requirement but managed to skirt the issue enough to get on the respective state ballots and win the electoral college. Congress can certify the election to its heart's content, but that would not make Obama a legitimate POTUS - he simply doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications. You can call a round peg "square" all you want, but that doesn't make it so...

178 posted on 04/13/2011 10:21:52 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: Joe 6-pack

Oh, I agree that Congress was complicit in this fraud. It refused to even consider the issue which was as irresponsible as anything they ever did. Now it is the only institution which can undone the fraud through impeachment.

There is indeed some problem with explaining the concept of NBC to the average dunderhead. But it is fairly simple to explain that a NBC has TWO citizen parents (at the time of Urkel’s birth). Now only the mother has to be a citizen (of any age unlike at the time of Urkel’s birth). You know that the Left will howl that this is only a “technicality” and Urkel should be grandfathered into the new requirements.

Someone has actually made the argument that the reason Urkel does not show the long form is that it would show he was not qualified by age. It don’t think that one holds much water.


180 posted on 04/13/2011 10:41:59 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson