"The vipers, Doc! They're as real as the horns on your head!"
Please take care of yourself, little jeremiah. ;-)
Posted on 07/08/2013 3:14:54 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
"The vipers, Doc! They're as real as the horns on your head!"
Please take care of yourself, little jeremiah. ;-)
You are blowing off everything I’ve said. The 20th Amendment clearly says that if the person the electoral process chooses fails to qualify he/she shall NOT “act as President”.
Well, very sincerely, I can assure you that I don't want you think that I am trying to blow off any of your opinions or arguments. You have been respectful to me and I want to return that favor. I appreciate very much your habit of sticking to the issues and not personalizing our discussion.
I am familiar with the Twentieth Amendment. I believe that a presidential candidate qualifiesfor the office of president when he is determined by the President of the Senate to have received the votes for president of "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed." (See Amendment Twelve.) Obviously, there is no guarantee that these procedures will be completed before January 20, as demonstrated in 1824 and as nearly demonstrated in 2000.
I do not think that the framers of the 20th Amendment contemplated that between election day and inauguration day, the candidate who thinks he won would be gathering together his birth certificate, his parents' birth certificates (or naturalization papers), fourteen years of his utility bills (residency requirement), etc. and then submit those documents to some person or group of persons not described in the 20th Amendment at some location not described in the 20th Amendment so that expert document examiners chosen by someone might investigate a candidate's eligibility. Then, presumably someone (not described in the 20th Amendment) would certify that the candidate passed or failed the eligibility tests, all before January 20. I don't believe any of that (or anything like any of that) was contemplated by the 20th Amendment.
But, again, that's just my opinion. You should feel free to disagree.
“Bonus cookie and free points to whomever can name who paid for 0bama’s dad to be flown from Kenya to Hawai...”
Catholic Social Services of CT was under contract with DHS and paid for BHO Sr. to fly to Hawaii to assert his paternal rights.
After BHO Sr. testified in a custody hearing he was BHO’s II father and he did not consent to the Soetoro adoption, the Soetoro adoption was annulled. The Court ordered the State of Hawaii to create a COLB with BHO Sr. as the father and Stanley Ann as the mother. The new COLB has a “date filed” to indicate information from a Court order was used to create the document.
That wasn’t his first trip to Hawaii.
You said “flown” from Kenya to Hawaii. His first trip from Kenya to Hawaii was by ship.
Brilliant essence of the Constitution regarding Presidential election.
If someone challenged the eligibility of the person certified as the electoral winner, it would constitute a “case or controversy” which should be decided by the judicial branch. The reason that didn’t happen is because the lower courts all claimed that it is nobody’s business whether or not the President and Commander-in-Chief is Constitutionally eligible. It supposedly harms nobody if our Constitution is broken - nobody except the person who would otherwise have won the Presidency, according to the courts.
It’s not the business of anybody in the Tea Party who was targeted by this illegal regime. Not the business of SEAL Team 6 which was targeted and killed because of leaks by this regime. Not the business of anybody denied justice because Eric Holder has been guarding the henhouse. Not the business of Chrysler dealers who were pushed out of business by this regime, or the stockholders whose holdings were taken away and given to the unions. Not the business of soldiers court-martialed through the chain-of-command set up by this regime. Not the business of the families whose loved ones were killed through Fast and Furious or Benghazi. Not the business of anybody whose computers and communications have been sabotaged by this regime for sheerly political purposes. Not the business of anybody who went out of business because of EPA, health, etc mandates set up by unaccountable bureaucrats/czars established by this regime.
Only John McCain’s business. He’s the only one who gets hurt if we have a foreign enemy combatant in our White House.
Does anybody here truly believe that? What exactly do the courts think this country means to people like me - nothing more than doo-doo in my toilet bowl? For a foreign enemy combatant to steal my country from me is worse than them taking everything I own. My country means more to me than my house, my car, my clothes, my medicines - ANYTHING, except my God and my family. But the regime is doing their best to steal God and family from us too. What numbnuts judge could truly believe that having a country stolen causes no harm to the people who love and depend on this country? If this country means so little then why the heck should the government get to snoop in everything - since nobody would really lose anything even if the country WASN’T “secure”? Why bother to (pretend to) try to protect this country if it is as worthless as the judges all say it is?
Are we really willing to say this is only John McCain’s country? Only his Constitution? This whole system is all for him - only him?
The whole premise is dead wrong. This is MY country, and anybody who thinks the loss of this country and her Constitution is none of my business has another think coming.
Just as the SEIU manages almost all the machines, handles whatever paper records generated at precincts, and presumably counts votes, with a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt counting votes, as Stalin pointed it, it only matters who counts the votes. Only the results soldiers people choose when the battle is engaged can give a clue about the allegiances of subjects under political-religious tyranny. Reports of elections in Egypt should always elicit skepticism.
It was remarkable to see people in Iraq line up for elections after the overthrow of Saddam, but even that should have been taken with skepticism. Islam is about the success of ruthless dictatorship - the power over subjects possible when disobedience means certain loss of limbs, heads, or life. Islam is the successful implementation of techniques to condition the most effective soldiers for despots, by convincing them that killing those whom they can't turn into despots will get them a pass to heaven, with seventy three virgins and eternal praise from God.
Without a lifeline from the Saudis, or these days from their partners, the U.S. under bin-Talal’s man running things here, while his brother manages the Jihad in Africa, Obama, Egypt will begin shortly to experience starvation. Islam is about Jihad, which means subjugation. They don't produce much these days, particularly as they murder the Coptic Christians, who were once the majority in Egypt.
A starving country run by the Muslim Brotherhood, whether Mursi is Prime Minister or the military, which is also largely controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. will have no choice but to execute the task which they are being coerced to complete. Egypt's charter, repeated hundreds of times by big-mouthed Imams on Arab television and in Mosques, involves using the F16s and Abrahms tanks which our Congress no longer has the authority to deny our Muslim Brother in charge, to attack Israel and perhaps Syria. Obama simply ignores both the Senate and House Intelligence committees who claim to have denied him the monies. It is against our laws to send aid to known terrorists, but now that we are the terrorists, and have only one branch of government, what remains of our productivity will be spent on the Caliphate.
Obama and his Wahhabi partners will achieve the end openly explained by Bush adviser Suhail Khan, a CPAC board member and ISNA and CAIR board member, whose father was a founder of ISNA (Islamic Society of North of America), protected and sponsored by Grover Norquist (who, if he has converted to Islam to join his Muslim wife, has not declared it, but then, neither did John Brennan). Their charter ordains the extermination of Jews, removal of the state of Israel, and conversion of the U.S. to an Islamic State, extending the umma, as Obama has successfully done to Egypt, Libya, with great progress in Algeria, Morocco, and Syria, with the aid of Obama’s new best friend, Erdogan of Turkey, who is well along with the elimination of Ataturk's separation of church and state. Erdogan wants the new Caliphate in Constantinople, but is busy eliminating some opposition from within, which won't take him long with our weapons and help from the European Union and NATO, and the able assistance of John McCain, always ready to help.
Recall that when Michelle Bachmann correctly asked for an investigation of presence in our State Department, with access to virtually all our secrets, a woman, Hillary's Chief of Staff, whose previous job was with a Muslim Brotherhood "charity", Huma Abedin, whose brother works for the Muslim Brotherhood and both of whose parents were senior “executives” of the brotherhood, and close to its founders, it was McCain who jumped in to protect the Muslim Brotherhood and attack Bachmann.
Egypt is the largest Wahhabi Arab country, a key source of soldiers in the millennial battle between Sunni and Shia sects - think Saudi Arabia and Egypt vs. Iran and Syria. Obama’s team, including Wahhabi convert John Brennan, now CIA director, are Sunni. The Shia have allied with Russia, and to lesser extent, China. The Sunni team under Obama is sacrificing our soldiers with suicidal rules of engagement (don't shoot back at the guy who fired at you unless you go behind the rocks and insure that there are no civilians who might be injured) while debilitating our armed forces. Obama spoke with typically disarming Muslim candor, telling us of his intentions to replace our Armed forces with a more potent and better equipped alternative. That was similar to his telling us quite openly that he is a naturalized citizen, demonstrating that our Constitution, Article II Section 1, wss not relevant for him.
When Barry was "elected", remembering that we have no verification mechanisms, his control of both parties and the judiciary was already accomplished. His past was hidden, and he also owned the press, including our presumably conservative Fox network, with the largest external stockholder being Alwaleed bin-Talal's Kingdom Holdings. Murdoch was being granted access to Arab television, and one of his sons is, if not a Muslim convert like Brennan, a committed Arabist like Samantha Power and Susan Rice. Every other network literally had relatives of senior management in the White House, and the enormous pot of gold called Tarp allowed Obama to bail out many of bin-Talal's other investments in AIG, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, GE, etc. Bin-Talal controls over ninety percent of Saudi investments, which virtually all comes from Western petroleum purchases. Elections matter little when so much wealth, combined with an ethic that loves death as we love life, controls them.
Egypt does not control its destiny today. Mubarak was an obstacle because he was a nationalist, an obstacle to the Muslim Brotherhood's plans, who had honored the peace treaty with Israel for thirty years or more, so we got rid of him with Googles help and an "Arab Spring." Then came Gaddafi and shortly, unless Putin decides to act, Assad. We are seeing the execution of plans written into the Muslim Brotherhood's founding documents over eighty years ago. Elections are agitprop for the Western press, like our own federal elections. There are no verification mechanisms for either Egyptian or U.S. elections. That is why Obama's IRS has savaged Truethevote.org, denying them 501C3 status for over three years, while Obama's half-brother, raising money for Jihad, got 501C3 status in two weeks, when his isn't even a U.S. based charity. Polls may have more veracity today than elections, depending upon how willing pollsters are to risk the loss of their clients by reporting truth. As citizens see the results of Obama's actions, those pollsters may find more opportunity by avoiding the usual villains, whom the public is learning mistrust.
Well, let's consider your proposal that following every election every voter who wants to challenge the outcome can file a lawsuit. How many lawsuits might that mean in total? How many lawyers must a candidate hire to handle the multiple lawsuits throughout the country.
If, as you propose, we permit all of these lawsuits to be filed, don't we need to permit the parties to prepare their cases by engaging in discovery? Don't we need to permit each of the plaintiffs to subpoena documents relating to the candidate's past? How about birth certificates for the candidate and both of his parents? How about requiring blood tests so that parentage can be proved by DNA testing? How about all of the candidate's school records, medical records, utility records, real estate records and employment records to determine whether he/she really satisfied the residency requirement? What will be said about a judge who might dare to refuse any request for more documents, more information? Isn't the judge just covering up for a usurping candidate? How long will this process of gathering documents and materials take?
Don't we then need to have all of these materials examined by experts to make sure none of the records have been forged by the schools, by the government entities, by the utilities, by the realtors, by the employers and by the health care entities that submit them in response to the subpoenas? How long will that take?
And, then don't we need time for the actual trial of each case? What happens if each of the plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits subpoenas the candidate to appear to testify in his/her case? Or, if they subpoena all of the persons (doctors, neighbors, employers, colleagues) named in the records so that the facts can be properly substantiated? What are you going to say about a judge who says that a witness doesn't have to show up? Isn't the judge just covering up for a usurping candidate? Can any of the documents be trusted when the survival of the Constitution is at stake? How long will all this take?
And, then, at the end of all this, each judge must render an opinion. Of course, it goes without saying that judges are much, much better at resolving questions of fact than the voters, right? We don't ever have to worry about a judge having any political views, do we? What happens if the judges in different cases disagree?
And, don't we need rights to appeal for each of the parties? How long will all this take? Can we accomplish all this between election day (early November) and inauguration day (January 20)? Could there be any possible reason that this process might take more than 11-12 weeks? What happens on January 20 if we're not yet done? What happens if someone in downtown Los Angeles files his case on January 15? Who runs the country while the president-elect and VP-elect remain tangled up in litigation about forged utility bills, etc? Maybe they can take their oaths by the following October (if everyone hurries)?
How about if we try to streamline the process by allowing just one voter to file a lawsuit? How do we choose that one voter? An election? First come, first serve? If the latter, what do you think will happen on the morning following each election? Do you think geography and local politics might matter when it comes to choosing the one plaintiff? Do you think the identity of the lucky voter chosen matters? How about if he's a supporter of the candidate and plans to throw the case? How about if he lacks the resources to subpoena all the witnesses and all the documents? Remember, we can't have a result that leaves any doubts because the survival of our Constitution is at stake!
If, as you propose, regular voters are allowed to file lawsuits to challenge eligibility issues after an election, they will, droves. Among the voters who want to pursue legitimate questions about legitimate doubts will be many, many publicity-seekers, crackpots and political opponents who just want to gather documents and evidence to harass or embarrass the next president.
And, on top of all that, none of the judges can find anything in the Constitution that authorizes them to interfere with elections by disqualifying candidates or what standards they should apply to determine whether or not they dare overturn the decision by voters and electors that their choice did meet the eligibility requirements.
Do you really think that if all of these procedures are utilized that everyone will be satisfied that the truth was discovered and justice achieved? Is that ever possible?
To me, it is obvious why courts refuse to intervene. It's not their job and they couldn't do it well if it was their job.
Everything you said about lawsuits regarding Presidential eligibility applies to every other legal issue also. Class-action lawsuits and legal precedents can be used. And if the matter is actually a criminal issue - such as forgery, fraud, perjury, etc - the only way to bring an end to the issue is through discovery. When one person gets discovery it answers the factual/evidential questions of most.
As it is we’ve had HOW MANY lawsuits and ballot challenges over Obama? If just one case had been allowed to have discovery we could have saved everybody a lot of money - AND we would have a POTUS, courts, and bureaucracy with some shred of credibility. Instead, we’ve got nothing but a big middle finger salute to every thinking person in this country, telling us to go F ourselves because this really isn’t our country and what our government does is none of our stinkin’ business. Those who thought the eligibility issue was nuts and we should concentrate on Obama’s other unconstitutional actions have found out that once the government is nobody’s business, we have NOTHING that our “concentration on” can even impact. The system has been divorced from any input by the people; it’s none of our business.
The whole concept of “particularized harm” has come to mean that it is nobody’s business if every individual gets their nose shaved off their face by the government because, after all, they got no worse than everybody else. It codifies the idea that legally you can do the Holocaust-grade evil to everybody that you would never be allowed to do to just one or a few people, because as long as you trample everybody, you trample nobody.
I don’t buy it.
And you’re still trying to claim that the Constitution doesn’t give the courts the right to decide “cases and controversies” arising out of the 20th Amendment. I don’t know how many more times I can say it, or how many different ways. There is nothing in the Constitution that exampts the 20th Amendment from being interpreted and applied by the courts. Nothing that says that Congress has to interpret and apply it. So it falls to the courts. And the courts know it. If there is a “case or controversy” the courts have to handle it. That’s why they’ve had to say it’s nobody’s business - because if there was a “case” they’d have to give it due process according to the US Constitution. And where there are cases - such as the ballot challenges, where voters are specifically told it IS their business - judges have chosen to just throw the cases out, to apply “sharia justice” (”judge’s knowledge” substituting for actual evidence), and/or let thugs threaten and intimidate the challenger into withdrawing the challenge.
It’s banana republic stuff. And it is NOT acceptable.
Well, no one is going to claim that the Founding Fathers intended that we use class actions to disqualify presidents-elect because they never heard of such procedures. And, there simply isn't any way in our judicial system to move a class action from filing through certification through discovery through trial between November and January. If you want to permit parties to conduct discovery, gather documents, have experts examine documents and fight over whether all of the state governments are forging documents, you need years rather than weeks or months. I don't think you can even get a case before Judge Judy in the 10-11 weeks we're talking about here.
And, following an inauguration, the Constitution makes it absolutely clear that there is only one way to remove a president from office - impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. That's where we are right now with Obama, even if you can find a lunar birth certificate showing that he was born on the moon.
The judicial system just isn't equipped to deal with eligibility issues. It's too slow and cumbersome to be of any use. Besides, under our present system, a candidate's qualifications are submitted to the judgement of 130 million voters. Not many Americans are going to support the idea of turning over that power to one judge, a panel of three judges, a panel of nine judges or a jury of twelve citizens. In the end, some person or group of persons will have to decide on eligibility issues. Voters are no more political or partisan than judges. When it comes to picking presidents, I would rather rely upon 130 million American voters than one judge or any handful of judges. So, I'm happy with the present system even if, like other systems, the present system might make occasional mistakes.
Our history is probably full of eligibility errors. I remember how surprised I was to learn that Henry Clay (one of our most famous politicians) began serving in the U.S. Senate when he was still in his twenties despite the clear constitutional requirement that senators be at least 30 years of age. And, he made no effort to try to conceal his age. Apparently, no one cared enough to complain about it.
Somehow, we always find a way to carry on.
Spaulding - thank you for your detailed reply (to my, what was it, one word comment?). I had computer issues today and tomorrow am jam packed busy so may not get to properly reply right away. But since the Egypt situation is riveting my attention, and I’m trying to learn what I can, I’m pinging these three who are much more knowledgeable than me to your comment.
One thing I have read many times is that under Mubarak, no MB member was allowed in the military; but Morsi of course reversed that; imprisoned MB were released, and MB allowed and promoted in the military. So far, the military seems intent on restraining the MB - arresting them, and so on.
So I’m wondering whether the MB will be influencing the military from now on.
Anyway, i want to get back to this as soon as I can, and hoping melancholy, Mesta Machine and/or caww might read your comment and perhaps make some of their own.
And my comment about Egypt meant maybe we’ll need to mass in the streets in the tens of millions to overturn the revolution that’s happened.
“Apparently, no one cared enough to complain about it.”
According to what you’re saying, it is nobody’s business to complain about it.
I will never agree with you on that. This conversation is going nowhere.
See FRmail :)
,,,,Apparently, no one cared enough to complain about it.,,,
apparently you don’t know what happened or if anyone knew he was not eligible,,,,but you claim no one cared,,,,well people have complained and cared about Obama so clay is not a valid comparison.,... but I suspect you knew that.
Ted Cruz - 2016
No, I'm saying it's everyone's business and everyone who votes should take seriously the duty to consider the qualifications of candidates. It's each voter's obligation and no one else can do it.
“People assume, as they should, that if a candidate is placed on a the ballot, He is qualified..... “
Therefore, I nominate Tau Food to be placed on the ballot,for the office of President of the United Grocers Association!
Good luck, Mr President Food!
In the immigration files posted online, Obama, Sr. supposedly stated, he arrived in New York, 1959.
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.