Posted on 09/08/2009 6:43:09 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Okay, assume Obama is determined to be ineligible to be the president due to him not being a natural born citizen of the United States. That would mean that neither he nor Biden would be eligible since he was elected under false pretenses.
It is quite possible that Pelosi will be facing charges up to treason for her part in this mess.
Byrd is physically unable to take the office.
And the rest of the Cabinet were appointed by Obama and would equally be ineligible as all of his appointments were unconstitutional.
My guess is that if this goes down, Pelosi resigns or is removed as Speaker of the House and we end up with another Rat.
However, the argument may also be made that since the elections results are null, the people who voted for Obama were duped and deserve another chance. There is no constitutional provision for what to do if a usurper were to manage to lie and connive his way into office because the founding fathers could never envision such a scenario.
So, what happens?
What you say may be true. My question to you, IS THE CONSTITUTION WORTH DEFENDING AGAINST MOB RULE?????
I agree. Let us now gird ourselves to resist ANY of it’s enemies, foreign OR domestic.
Ignoring a violation of the Constitution, if there has been one, isn't going to cut it either.
Perhaps not. His mother says he was born on the naval base at Coco Solo. The reporter who saw his birth certificate says the same, not the most reliable source of course, but he did verify that the doctor's name on the BC was indeed a that of a Navy doctor then assigned to Coco Solo. And the birth was announced in the English language August 31, 1936 Panamanian American as having been born in the "Submarine base" Hospital.
One of the McCain "Birth Certificates" floating around on the net showing his birth in Colon, is an obvious fake, the other not so obvious, but still likely a fake.
Moronic as he is, Biden is unlikely to pick Stretch as his VP, should he become President. The President does get to pick a new VP, with the advice and consent of the Senate, under the XXVth amendment.
It appears to me that our Education System is a massive failure, when its 'graduates' of all levels are so ignorant as to the common language used in the country.
Please note the following REQUIREMENT for President:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
There are only five instances in the Constitution detailing "citizen". Only ONE has any specified qualification: they made a clear distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" in this clause.
The 14th Amendment is only to determine the CITIZENSHIP of all others within the US Borders, primarily freed slaves and indentured servants … it has no bearing on the "natural born citizen" issue.
The designation of "citizen" was carried over from Article IV of The Articles of Confederation of the United States of America:
Note: They established the inhabitants of the Colonies as FREE CITIZENS.
In all of the citizenship cases brought before the US Supreme Court over the past two centuries, not one has used the term "natural born citizen" to refer to a person born of any immigrant, non-citizen parent.
An additional argument against using Blackstone’s interpretation instead of Vattel can be found in George Mason’s statement at the Convention - "The common law of England is not the common law of these States." As is pointed out at USC | Vattel, the Blackstone common law definition was used by Great Britain as the justification for impressing American seamen into the British Navy. We went to war in 1812 because we didn’t agree with that interpretation!
There are copious items in the Constitution that are not explicitly defined. There's no indication they intended it to be a literal dictionary. Furthermore, there was no need to define it in the Constitution for the reason I stated above. Folks during that time knew Vattel's work and therefore were familiar with his definition.
Clearly, Vattel defines "Natural Born Citizen" and Blackstone defines "Natural Born Subject." Which appears in the Constitution?
The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was ejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
I didn't realize that. Thank you very much.
I agree that he wouldn't pick her unless forced to. That we can't predict.
His COLB states he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. I’ve seen it. It was shown here on FR. His COLB was issued by the Canal Zone.
Coco Solo did not have a hospital until 1941. McCain was born in 1936.
After reading everything I could find on replacing a President that is what I find. The only way I could see that NOT be the case is if someone then sued to have the Obama Ticket deemed not eligible due to having someone who did not meet the requirements and deceived the voters. (There have been cases filed and affirmed based on equal protection of the voters IIRC.)
Where does the Constitution do that? Not Vattel. Not British Common Law. But where does the Constitution itself define natural born citizen?
Nowhere in the Constitution is such a fantasy land proposition.
If the President is deemed unable or ineligible to serve, the Vice President serves.
This is NOT rocket science, it is in fact one of the very few reasons we even have a Vice President.
Basic Logic tells us the Constitutiton cannot cover ALL aspects of any given situation.
What does the constitution tell us if the Vice President is ineligabile to assume the job?
And Joe Biden is perfectly eligible and was elected to VPOTUS 100% in accordance with the Constitution.
This is, once again, NOT rocket science.
Read the Constitution.
I wonder about that. Since Biden’s position is directly tied to the fact that he ran with Obama, if Obama’s election was illegal, so is Biden’s.
I have read the Constitution, when was the succession issue settled?
The succession is spelled out in simple plain English, it goes President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State.
Only in fantasyland would there be a ‘do over’ election, grabbing the VPOTUS of the last administration, or certifying the losing candidate and their VP as the new administration.
Once again, this is the United States of America, where we need to follow the Constitution; not “make it up as you go along Land”.
Still does not answer my question when was Succession settled ANd when was it first proposed?
It has been settled law from that time until now.
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.