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

To: Kenny Bunk
This isn't a Supreme Court issue.

It's a "Failure to qualify" issue under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. If there is no valid birth certificate upon which to prove eligibility, Congress has allowed a usurpation to occur by FAILING to enforce this amendment. If we are dealing with a usurper, there is no impeachment needed as we do not have a President to impeach. We simply have a usurper to arrest.

All of this can be acted upon the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three not being obeyed and proving it hasn't been obeyed.

28 posted on 08/20/2013 4:25:52 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Sham; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; ...
Constitutional Eligibility

29 posted on 08/20/2013 5:22:35 PM PDT by null and void (Frequent terrorist attacks OR endless government snooping and oppression? We can have both!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Sham
This isn't a Supreme Court issue.

Of course it is. And it really has nothing to do with Obama. The SCOTUS needs to get 4 justices to agree to take an appeal and tell us what a "natural born Citizen" is.

They might well rule against what you desire. Or for it. After that, it is up to Congress to use that ruling, or not use it against Obama. What the SCOTUS doing its job would mean is the clarification of the issue for future candidates.

One might well accuse Congress of neglecting it's duty. However, they are just like us in that there are differing opinions on what that duty might be in this case. That's why we have a SCOTUS, to tell us what the COTUS means.

It's a "Failure to qualify" issue under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. If there is no valid birth certificate upon which to prove eligibility, Congress has allowed a usurpation to occur by FAILING to enforce this amendment.

Where does it say it has to be a Birth Certificate. What is the "proof of eligibility." the 20th is an Amendment ... a part of the COTUS. When there's a problem, it is the SCOTUS' constitutional duty to accept appeals that define the meaning of the Constitution.

Please note again that the courts cannot remove the President. Just as the Congress cannot ultimately define the Constitution.

I am not defending the pusillanimity of Congress in this matter, just that the SCOTUS' is more egregious.

30 posted on 08/20/2013 6:35:23 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Don't miss the Blockbuster of the Summer! "Obama, The Movie" Introducing Reggie Love as "Monica! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Sham

There is no state in the union that requires submitting a birth certificate in order to qualify for the state ballot. The Arizona state legislature passed such a law but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed it in 2011.

The power to check qualifications for office is a state issue not a federal issue. Every states’ Chief Election Official (usually an elected Secretary of State) cleared Obama for the state’s ballot in 2008 and in 2012.

There are still two pending ballot challenges to Obama’s eligibility, in Alabama before the all Republican state Supreme Court and in Mississippi before a Reagan-appointed federal judge.

There were 50 lawsuits or state election board challenges filed in 22 states for the 2012 election cycle contesting Obama’s eligibility. There was no ruling of ineligibility.


31 posted on 08/20/2013 7:06:05 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | 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