I posted this a long time ago.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution
Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:59:02 AM by Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
The language of the 20th puts the responsibility on the President elect to qualify, NOT on others to disqualify him or her.
Unfortunately, only those who have standing to challenge the qualifications of Mr. Obama may bring an action. However, anyone who brings an action seeking to challenge the qualifications of Mr. Obama, ipso facto, does not have standing to bring such an action.
“Do we as citizens have a right to know whether or not our president is actually a legal occupant of the White House?”
Well, it would appear at this point that we do not have any such right. This is a critical constitutional issue and deserves a full and complete hearing and resolution. There are far too many questions about this guy’s background and history that need to be clarified. It makes NO sense that he is spending, reportedly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep these details hidden, when a simple Birth Certificate would resolve the issue.
Keep the heat on him.
It’s time to take back the country.
0bama’s concealment of his birth certificate is utterly scandalous, but I fear that what the Constitution meant by “unable to qualify” was a case where no one received enough electoral votes, and the election was thrown into the House. Can anyone prove me wrong?
I think the long form probably lists him as “muslim”...nothing more, nothing less.
Here is a slightly condensed version of a list of items (compiled by another Freeper) of items that have NOT been released to the public by Comrade 0bama:
1. Original ‘Vault’ Copy of original Birth certificate
2. Columbia College records
3. Columbia Thesis paper
4. Harvard College records
5. Illinois State Senate records
6. Illinois State Senate schedule
7. Law practice client list and billing records/summary
8. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
9. Occidental College records
10. Parent’s Marriage Certificate
11. Record of baptism
12. Selective Service Registration
13. Trip schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
14. Scholarly articles written in college
15. Elementary School Records from DOE State of Hawaii.
NONE of our prior Presidents have felt the need to go to such extreme lengths to conceal the details of their origins and their educational/cultural history, why should the current Usurper be given a pass?
This qualification would only be relevent if the USA government paid any attention to the Constitution. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that they do not.
BTTT
Have you contacted any election official in Louisiana to determine how Barack Obama got on the ballot as a presidential candidate? Is it as simple as checking a box on a form that asks if you're a natural born citizen, or is there a process and qualifying paperwork required?
Oh, not this sh*t again!
You post: "the President-elect MUST present evidence..."
Now, AFAIK, NO President-elect, from Washington to little Bush has done this. It's never been asked for, and it's never been voluntarily presented.
There is no specification in the Constitution, as amended, and there's no enabling legislation in the US Code.
So how on Earth can you possibly sustain the claim that Obama MUST do what you want him to do?
I would like to emphasize two things to aid anyone in asking your representative for the documents certifying his qualification.
1. It is only a President-elect who can qualify to be President. Obama was not President-elect until after the electoral votes had been tabulated. So only documentation he provides AFTER that point legally make him President. Has he, after Noon on Jan. 8th 2009, placed in the public domain his “documents of qualification”?
2. This is not a case of “innocent until proven guilty” but rather a case of “unqualified until qualified”. Even if this has never been done in the past, the burden rests on him to qualify. WE do not have to come up with proof somehow that he is unqualified, as everyone in power seems to be suggesting. HE is CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED to prove after that date HIS qualification. Until He does He is not President.
The Constitution is OUR collective contract with our Federal government through which it has certain duties and limitations. The reasons for this are simple but profound. The Declaration of Independence clearly states these lest anyone under authority doubt the government’s authority or anyone at all be wrongfully affected.
“...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...”
It is the duty of the President elect to qualify in order to serve us, not the right of anyone chosen to rule over us. If He does not consent to the duties and limitations of the Constitution, then We do not consent to His powers as Just!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”Sign these 4 petitions against Sebelius & Contact the Senators:
-- Contact your Senator here and Call your U.S. Senators & Sen. Brownback today at 202-224-3121.
-- Catholics Against Sebelius petition
-- Susan B. Anthony List petition
-- American Life League petition
-- Fact Check
-- e-mail 0bama
Call Sen. Brownback the Traitor
-- ALL's Judie Brown on Sen. Brownback: "I'll never use 'pro-life' to describe him again"
-- Brownback waffles but will vote to confirm Sebelius
-- Sam Brownback - the latest GOP traitor?
Read and pass around these two articles about Sebelius:
-- InsideCatholic.com: Obama's Choice of Sebelius Heats Up the Pro-life Battle
-- USA Today: Kansas Gov. Sebelius told not to take Communion
Call the RNC and ask Chairman Steele (who is Catholic and pro-life) to officially mobilize the party against the Sebelius nomination and to expose her radical pro-abortion views: 202.863.8500
Hat-tip to Coleus for assembling this data, THANK YOU!
Sounds good, think I’ll use this info in a letter versus email to my CongressCritters.
What is he Hiding and Why?
“What I don’t understand, however, is that we know his mother was an American citizen. According to federal law, aren’t children of American citizens considered natural born citizens if born in another country?”
Not true if one parent was not a US citizen. Here is from the Department of State.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
She did not live in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 before he was born. If he was born overseas, not only would he not have “natural born” citizenship, he would not have US citizenship.
ping