Posted on 11/30/2008 7:24:51 AM PST by ckilmer
Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I’m not sure you’re right if the information comes out before the electoral college votes.
For example, should a candidate go obviously insane, or perform an obvious felony -- murder, rape, grand theft, etc -- after election day but prior to the Electoral College voting it makes perfect sense that the Electors could either withhold their votes or vote another candidate, even when bound by oath. In those case, I hold, the oath is nullified by well-known circumstance.
The similarity between a jury and the electoral college is well-known to students of history. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America:
It was thought that if the legislature was empowered to elect the head of the executive power its members would for some time before the election be exposed to the manoeuvres of corruption and the tricks of intrigue whereas the special electors would like a jury remain mixed up with the crowd till the day of action when they would appear for a moment only to give their votesDemocracy in America By Alexis de Tocqueville, Henry Reeve, Francis Bowen, Daniel Coit Gilman
You're late, I was corrected within a few minutes of the post. I went with the explanation I got from a college law professor, which was a stupid thing to do on my part. And I think you have me confused with someone else about the 12th vs. 20th amendments, I did see some comments about Congress weighing in but it wasn't me.
NONE... NONE of these appointments are official until someone is sworn in as president on January 21st. If you were McCain and the presidency was about to miraculously fall into your lap would YOU argue about appointments? Maybe a few but he keeps Gage and other key Republican appointees. He's philosophically not all that far away from moderate Democrats and these people are smart. Everyone is lining up. If Barry wins, they have a job. If McCain rises from the dead... they have a job!
The are nothing of the sort. The Constitution gives them one responsibility and one responsibility only, to cast the votes for president. It places one restriction on them, they cannot vote for a president and vice president who come from the same state as themselves. And that's it. They aren't a judge. They aren't a jury. The Constitution places those responsibilities in the hands of others.
You disagree with history then!
I think I am. The 20th Amendment says, “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify...” That’s it.
Then point it out.
To buttress the duty of decision making, so as to chose a man fit for the office by way of highest moral character, to chose a man of obvious virtue, that is EXPECTED by the Founders for an Elector, I here extract Hamilton, from Federalist No. 68:
The people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. ...The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. ... It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
Source: http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
Please post an example or two of my supposed arrogance, or apologize.
Calling you on your various errors here on FR is not arrogance.
ML/NJ
I was looking more for U.S. law, Supreme Court cases, or some sort of precedent to back up your claim and not the opinions of a 19th century Frenchman. De Tocqueville was a lot of things, but authority on Constitutional law isn't one of them.
A long chain of stare decisis ends up abusive to common sense, and moral order -- so we have now in 2008 discovered. Time to reset the basics of law to the Original.
Calling them errors based on your opinion alone is.
NO NO IT GOES TO THE RUNNER UP....PRESIDENT PALIN
I don't know that the courts *can* do anyting, other than require him, or the Hawaiian authorities directly, the long form birth certificate.
After that, it's up to the Electors, the Congress (inlcluding perhaps the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney), and finally the people. If the revaltion came before the electors vote, they would vote for some other Democrat, hopefully after checking on that one's eligibility. If between the time they vote and Dick Cheney opens the tally sheet, then it's up to Congress. If after the Inaguration, Congress *could* impeach and remove, although (although technically since he'd be ineligible, he never really would have held the office, so maybe the 25th amendment, section 4, would have to be invoked, since an ineligbile person is unable to discharge the duties of President.
Section. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Of course a Rat Congress and a Rat VP are unlikely to do that, and the only course of action would be Jefferson's.
I have no idea what would happen if the revelation came between the Congress certifying the election and inauguration. I guess All Hell Would Break Loose.
Some GSA (General Services Administration) supplied office *space*, in DC and Chicago, along with phones, fax machines and computers.Probably some nice stationary too.
That's it, there is no such "office" in the sense of something headed by an "official" of the government. None, nada.
The Anti-Federalists were just as direct.
what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to To William S. Smith, Paris, Nov. 13, 1787
Got links to a few of those bios of Sarah? There being so many and all
One would think, since Obama doesn't speak Luo or Swahili.
But his sister does, being an educated woman, and English too. She was obviously the translator. But why mention that the older female relative only spoke Luo, if the conversation was being translated from English to Luo and back anyway? Why not say something like: even though she and Sarah only spoke Luo, or "she like Sarah", only spoke Luo"?
IMHO of course. Of course the whole affair is already a nightmare, but it will turn into the Mother of All Nightmares, if it plays out after the Inauguration.
While true, I think many such instances are typos, not lack of knowledge. I have trouble with homonyms. My fingers just seem to type the first one that occurs to them, whether that is the correct one or not. I have to proof read very carefully. And I still miss some, particularly "their" and "there", rarely the triple "to", "too" and "two", but occasionally the first pair, just as an ordinary typo. With repeated letters, it's easy to miss one.
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.