Which we exercise in one of two ways:
1) Through our Representatives in Congress assembled. These Representatives voted 538-0, with Richard Cheney of Wyoming in the chair, to certify the election of Barack Obama. The Electoral Vote Counting Act designated this special Joint Session of Congress as the proper forum for challenges to the qualifications of electoral vote recipients, none were raised.
2) Through revolution.
This forum is not a venue for advocacy of #2, according to the owner. According to #1, Barack Hussein Dunham Obama Soetero is fully qualified as President, by the unanimous vote of the only body capable of acting on behalf of the People.
Where does that leave you?
I quoted U.S. code to you. Isn’t that good enough for you? Your “Electoral Vote Counting Act” doesn’t eliminate the requirement to qualify. Eliminating that would take an AMENDMENT to the constitution itself. No “act” is constitutional if it doesn’t uphold the constitution. This “act” of yours, by NOT REQUIRING that qualifications are indeed presented, but relies on the good faith of a representative to question it doesn’t uphold that which is written in the twentieth amendmend. This is in direct conflict with the language of the twentieth amendment thus it is not constitutional. Got any other worthless arguments?
1) Through our Representatives in Congress assembled. These Representatives voted 538-0, with Richard Cheney of Wyoming in the chair, to certify the election of Barack Obama. The Electoral Vote Counting Act designated this special Joint Session of Congress as the proper forum for challenges to the qualifications of electoral vote recipients, none were raised.
2) Through revolution.
You missed one.
We the people, either collectively or individually, have a First Amendment RIGHT to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." That should mean that any citizen of the United States has standing to challenge a Constitutional violation.