Posted on 08/22/2008 7:24:12 PM PDT by ex-Texan
To say that the Congress may act if the President-elect is not qualified means nothing without answering these questions.
Madsen is a Bush hater and stuff but he is no kid. He has been around forever.
Does alGore in 2000 ring a bell???
Are you saying Al Gore wasn’t a US citizen? Not clear what you’re getting at.
NO; I am just reminding you about the DNC and alGore’s twisting the constitution by stealing the election, typically democRAT behavior in general!!!
Thanks, I hadn’t heard of or about him (the attorney) before. Gives me pause, but I still think he is right and can only hope that this does get some attention and credibility. After all, the Dems have made plenty of slanderous comments about Bush and other Republicans - and that always gets attention. Same old story, as we know about media bias.
That's great news! I haven't heard anything on WABC in NYC yet. I tried to call into Monica Crowley this afternoon, but couldn't get through (and frankly doubted the screener would let me on).
Roger is good -- I enjoy his guest hosting; sometimes even listen to him via StreamingRadioGuide.com.
I was completely unable to listen to Coast To Coast last night, but hope that via SRG I can hear a rebroadcast at one of the stations that airs "CTC Rewound."
Ammendment XII mandates that Congress assemble in joint session for the purpose of counting - and declaring the winners of the Presidential election - the Electoral College ballot vote count of each of the individual States. Moreover, Federal law mandates that such joint session take place on the sixth day of January in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors. The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. The sitting Vice President is expected to preside, but in several cases the President pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings instead. The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's signed, certified and sealed vote and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote. Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order.1
During the joint session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the joint session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the joint session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted. - How does the Electoral College work?If there are no objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote and, if applicable, states who is elected President and Vice President. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber.2
My take on the matter is that objections against Electoral College ballot vote for President or Vice-President on grounds of qualification of the candidate that actually carry, would not be counted. If the objection does not carry, then the Electoral College ballot vote count for that state would be counted.
However, those members of Congress that unsuccessfully raised objections on grounds of qualification are then clear to file - based on who the petitioners of this case where - a petitions for writs of certiorari directly with the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court grants a petition for certiorari only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include, without limitation:3Congress most likely would immediately busy itself to reintroduce legislation akin to two bills from 2005 that had proposed amending the Constitution so as to permit persons having been citizens of the United States for many years but not being natural-born citizens to hold the Office of President. At the time neither bill got any further action beyond that year. H.J.RES.2, introduced on January 4, 2005, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI-14) and cosponsored by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA-27), would require 20 years of citizenship for naturalized Americans to be eligible to hold the Office of President. H.J.RES.42, introduced on April 14, 2005, sponsored by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR-2) and cosponsored by Christopher Shays (R-CT-4), would require 35 years of citizenship for naturalized Americans to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.4
- to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal constitution
- to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
- to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.
Congress would no doubt break all previous records known in the History of Mankind concerning passage of legislation, and a massive media blitz will ensue in the interim when the amendment is passed for ratification to the individual States. The shrieking horror of the MSM media will know no bounds, screaming in a collective fit of apoplexy that the entire Democrat electorate will be disenfranchised if the NoBamessiah is not enthroned in His rightful seat upon the throne in the White House. Underscoring that very real affect, will be the vivid and graphic nightmarish scenario of countless generations of innocent Democrat children needlessly suffering for millenium under scorching skies, a once lush landscape turned into a withering desert and oodles of coastline submerged under miles of melted glacial meltage. All the while facing the very real daily risk of total annhiliation and utter extinction when the Earth collapses in on itself because the evil petroleum companies having sucked all the oil out of the earth; ultimately imploding like an egg having all its guts sucked out. Of course women and childeran will be hardest hit.
However, and if but for, the Carl Rove weather machine screaming in hyperdrive, the full unmitigated wickedness of its black-hole core being tapped beyond design specifications so as to ecke out every last nano-erg of evil New Orleans obliterating power, and focused with laser precision upon the seat of every State government in the nation, each and every State legislature will unable to convene, and the ammendment will ultimately fail to ratify.
Even if Carl Rove's weather machine is unsuccessful in that regard, it could be a moot point if the SCOTUS makes its ruling regarding any petition for certiorari that could be before the Court pertaining this matter prior to passage of said Constitutional Amendment; Conress being prohibited from passing any ex post facto Law.
Therefore, exactly at noon on 20th January, J. Biden could presumptively be sworn in as "acting President" until such time that "a President qualifies for the Executive office." Until such time that the presumptive "acting President" nominates a Vice-President with "advice and consent of Congress" and subsequently confirmed by both House & Senate, the Speaker of the incoming House would become "Vice-President Pro Tempore" (provided Speaker of the House steps down from both their chair and resign from their elected seat in the House of Representative). Should Botox Nancy not wish to do so, the mantle of "Vice-President Pro Tempore" would fall to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; by tradition, the President Pro Tempore is the longest-serving Senator of the majority party in the Senate.
When the President is disabled or is removed or has died, or otherwise fails to qualify, to what does the Vice President succeed: to the "powers and duties of the said office," or to the office itself? There appears to be a reasonable amount of evidence from the proceedings of the convention from which to conclude that the Framers intended the Vice President to remain Vice President and to exercise the powers of the President until, in the words of the final clause, "a President shall be elected." Nonetheless, and that notwithstanding, when President Harrison died in 1841, Vice President Tyler, after initial hesitation, took the position that he was automatically President**, a precedent which has been followed subsequently and which is now permanently settled by Ammendment XXV Sec. 1; which as well had settled a number of other pressing questions with regard to presidential inability and succession.If none of the aforegoing occurs, then Ammendment XXV Sec. 4, clause 1 could kick in to plug the loophole enabled by Congress' failure to act regarding upholding the Constitution. In this case, Ammendment XXV Sec. 4 gives mandate to that "other body as by Law Congress may provide" to declare, in writing to both the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives that the sitting President is unable to "discharge the powers and duties of the [Executive] office...".Note: E. Corwin, supra at 53-59, 344 n. 46.5
What that "other body as by Law Congress may provide" that is empowered by Amendment XXV to decide the President is unable to "discharge the powers and duties of the [Executive] office..." is a complete mystery to me. Nevertheless, and all the foregoing notwithstanding,
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in [the natural born] clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is "a natural born citizen" in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.[100] Whatever the term "natural born" means, it no doubt does not include a person who is "naturalized." Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Amendment XIV, providing that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens. [101] Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’ [102] This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. [103] There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. [104] Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a "case or controversy" — as well as how it might decide it — can only be speculated about.6----------------------
Notes:
1, 2) Wiki entry: Joint session of Congress and the contingent election
3) Wiki entry: Supreme Court, How a case moves through the Court
4) Wiki entry:Qualification, disqualification and common practice (par 8)
5,6) Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States Senate Document No. 108-17,
2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002
(The Constitution with Annotations: Article II) - PDF 640k
[100] 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
[101] Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 886-887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘‘Heads of Departments’’ in the appointments clause. See also id. at 917 (Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered ‘‘naturalized’’ by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
[102] Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672-675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
[103] 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, § 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).
[104] See, e.g., Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968).
Thank you so much for telling me this! I'm listening to Hedgecock's interview right now on "Roger Hedgecock Weekend" on WBHP AM out of Huntsville, AL via SRG!
bump
I sent him a "Thanks For Philip Berg Interview!" email via his website, and I got a personal reply back right away!
[my name]--thanks for listening. Watch for my column in worldnetdaily.com Monday on this subject. Roger
So watch for it Monday!
Once a Texan always a Texan.
Obama Ineligible! Born in Mombasa!
ObamaCrimes.com | Aug 21, 2008 | Philip J. Berg, Esq
Posted on 08/23/2008 4:14:04 AM PDT by solfour
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2066624/posts
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.