Posted on 05/21/2009 5:57:28 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
We the People have a serious problem facing us. We have an out of control government hell-bent on further enslaving us at breakneck speed. This government displays a piece of paper every now and then called the Constitution, mostly at election time in an effort to comfort us into thinking that somehow it is being obeyed. We know differently, don't we?
We have a person pretending to be President who has yet to prove to me or to anyone else for that matter that he is actually eligible to serve under the provisions of Article two of the Constitution. Our elected officials, as you will see below, are REQUIRED to ensure that he is in fact eligible. It is our job as citizens to put the heat on them (our elected officials) to do their primary job as defined in the Constituion, to "support it". We have the legal case to do this and I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. 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, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President electshall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
I will!
Thanks for your reply.
STE=Q
Find conservative judges and conservative Federal prosecutors and present this to them. I'm not getting the responses you seem to be getting. I'm trying to find out what all of the options are for REMOVING my representatives from office.
Thank you very much for that. I’ll keep looking.
"In short: a ‘conspiracy’ of silence."
Ignoring any portion of the Constitution is equivalent to ignoring all of it. It is not now, nor ever has been a "pick and choose" document. The document itself in Article Six says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Another passage from Article Four, Section four says:
"Section 4 - Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Now, what does this passage mean to you? To me it means that we as a nation are a "representative republic" whereby our wishes and demands are represented by someone who "represents" them on our behalf. This passage "guarantees" to every state that we will be "represented". Think about this guarantee for a moment. Are we being represented, if our legislator is absent during votes? Are we being represented if our legislator doesn't know the content of that which he cast votes for or against? What's the difference? This goes beyond just the oath of office because now this "guarantee" is also being compromised.
Believe it or not, I took your advice and Article Four, Section Four, jumped out at me!
... And I did a little research, as follows:
Republic (n)
1: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also: a nation or other political unit having such a government
2: a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to VOTE and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to LAW; also: a nation or other political unit having such a form of government(Emphases Mine)
Notice #2: The SUPREME POWER of 'The Citizens' is transfered by the agency of the citizens VOTE to Officers and REPRESENTATIVES who then become empowered to govern -- on behalf of the citizens -- according to LAW.
Now once we EMPOWER the aforementioned REPRESENTATIVES to govern on our behalf, through the agency of our VOTE; the most obvious way to dis-empower them, is ALSO, though the agency of our vote.
I also found this little "gem" as follows:
GUARANTEE OF REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The first clause of this section, in somewhat different language, was contained in the Virginia Plan introduced in the Convention and was obviously attributable to Madison. 321 Through the various permutations into its final form, 322 the object of the clause seems clearly to have been more than an authorization for the Federal Government to protect States against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, 323 a power seemingly already conferred in any case. 324 No one can now resurrect the full meaning of the clause and intent which moved the Framers to adopt it, but with the exception of the reliance for a brief period during Reconstruction the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored. 325
In Luther v. Borden, 326 the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that "it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character..."
So -- according to the Supreme Court -- CONGRESS must GUARANTEE: A Republican form of Government.
The KEY word here is GUARANTEE.
So my question is this:
What LAWS have Congress passed in order to "guarantee" a Republican Form of Government?
Who will oversee this "GUARANTEE" if the Supreme Court won't!
THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT (copy and past)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fingodwetrustblog%2Ecom%2F2009%2F03%2F28%2Fa%2Dconstitutional%2Drepublic%2Dor%2Da%2Ddemocracy%2F&feature=player_embedded
Excerpt:
When Ben Franklin exited the constitutional convention he was asked by a woman:
'Sir, what have you given us?'
He replied 'A Republic Ma am, if you can keep it'
Apparently, the burden is on "We the People" to restore the republic, before it's too late!
We must keep the issue of Obama's hiding his citizenship status -- in plain sight of The United States Congress -- alive!
STE=Q
Our "vote" cannot be the only way because if they want to ignore the Constitution, whats to keep them from simply ignoring the parts of it that require elections? We MUST and investigate and define all avenues of removal of our "public servants". Good digging, though.
BUMP!
Thanks for the bump. This issue deserves it.
Pinging The List.
From the very beginning of obama’s refusal to show his BC, I mentioned a class action lawsuit. For some reason I was told it was not possible. Say 5 million people, getting together and paying a dollar each for a attorney to do one thing, get the BC. What attorney would say no to that?
what are the legal terms of a class action lawsuit? We have enough people online to do this. Look at the tea party participant numbers.
There are attorneys and groups who fight for the people. I know there is a big one in Washington.
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/casesbytopic_Date.cfm
One of the lawsuits filed was over Franklin Raines and line item veto. What? Imagine that. I have read one of the cases the attorneys fought and won. His name was Greg Beck but he does cases about online fair use laws. From my reading they seem totally involved in citizens rights as according to the laws.
http://www.tlpj.org/ I know nothing about this one.
There is another one that I can’t remember the name of. They fought for all of those college students who got stung uploading songs.
Why would these non profits not look into this? The other problem is someone has to have asked already.
“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C.
Anyone have the Pelosi signed document she vetted obama properly?
I don’t think we need a class-action lawsuit because those representatives of ours have the “standing” by virtue of their oath of office in Article Six of the Constitution. It is up to us, the little folks to put LEGAL pressure on each of our representatives to live up to their oath of office or just admit that the Constitution is worthless. Guess what. If it’s worthless, they can no longer claim powers granted to them by it. We don’t have to respect it either. Let’s put them in that corner.
Mike Gallagher had a program today on the ‘missing BC’.
Haven’t we tried to do that? Look at all the money spent for full page ads and the lawsuits. What the h*ll is going on? I am beginning to think this was one big conspiracy to turn our nation into socialism and our GOP are a part of it.
After Orly confronted two SCOTUS judges did they ever answer her?
Update me what you figure out. Cheney is on the lawsuit to answer June 21st.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/lawyers/mario-apuzzo/
I think a lot has been done to corner everyone unless they dumb, deaf and blind.
this website has weekly teleconference on obama’s eligibility. You can call in and ask questions or give your ideas. They all work together once they have a plan too. The past calls are available.
And therein lies the problem in a huge nutshell. His job is NOT to prevent crime. His job is to investigate the crime afterwards, and prosecute the criminal(s) if there is enough proof a criminal can/will be found guilty. I THINK doesn't get it. A PROVEN, ACTUAL crime has got to be committed first or a policeman cannot act, and it must be pursued as a crime by criminal investigation. There must be independent PROOF that a criminal is guilty because a criminal cannot be forced to incriminate him/herself.
As I said before, the Fifth Amendment has created a paradox in this situation. I don't have time right now to go into this deeper, but I will later.
"What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us."
To which you posted
"His job is NOT to prevent crime."
So, lets see now, you are of the opinion that a policeman's job is NOT to prevent crime. That's ridiculous, almost "Obama-like" thinking.
I guess if someone takes out a gun in front of a policeman and starts shooting bystanders, he is supposed to wait till everything is over and the gun is emptied before he attempts to apprehend the shooter. That's what YOU are suggesting.
I am suggesting that such a policeman would be sent to prison, deservedly so. If our representatives refuse to obey their oaths of office as it pertains to the Twentieth amendment, section three of the Constitution, they also should be legally prosecuted. The fifth amendment has NOTHING to do with this.
Another thing, the Twentieth amendment, section three CLEARLY requires that the person wanting to ascend to the office of President is the one responsible for providing qualification evidence. We the people don't have to do any "thinking" about whether or not this was in fact done. We the people can, according to our very own Constitution can DEMAND that it be done and DEMAND as well the proof that it was done. Our reps are in for some heat until they obey the document from which they themselves claim power to govern over us.
I sugggest you read the above quote again and realize how utterly ridiculous it is. I would also suggest that guns don't kill people, people do, and if a guy pulls a gun in front of a cop, he deserves to be shot dead on the spot...before he shoots anyone.
So, lets see now, you are of the opinion that a policeman's job is NOT to prevent crime. That's ridiculous, almost "Obama-like" thinking.
Listen. I posted what is LEGAL. You really have no call to insult me like this.
It is NOT a policeman's job to prevent a crime in the thinking stage. THAT is obama-like thinking. Many dead wives or girlfriends could tell you that, if they were able to speak. But they can't so allow me to tell you why they can't.
You must have read or seen at least once in your life, that a woman was murdered by a boyfriend, ex-husband, whatever, AFTER she had obtained a court order, a LEGAL restraining order, because she felt her life in danger. Often there were threats, phone calls, stalking, but no proof and NO ARREST. And if there was an arrest, it was for a misdemeanor and a couple days in jail, then out again. The next thing you know, she's dead. Why???
The attempted bombing in New York this past week. It took them a YEAR from the "thinking stage" to an actual crime being committed before they could make an arrest because you can't arrest someone for SAYING they want to, or will at some point in the future, commit a crime.
In your example,you said you think someone is going to commit a crime, so the cop goes and arrests someone who has done nothing yet. How long do you think that cop would have a job?
All the cop can do is watch and wait...UNTIL a crime happens.
If our representatives refuse to obey their oaths of office as it pertains to the Twentieth amendment, section three of the Constitution, they also should be legally prosecuted. The fifth amendment has NOTHING to do with this.
And who is going to prosecute them and for WHAT? What reason did they have to believe that a crime of this astonishing magnitude could be/would be/was hatched and undertaken in such a breathtaking, ingenious way that to this very moment, there is NO SUBJECTIVE PROOF that it actually happened?
Just for shlitz and giggles, though, there is also a little thing called pattern of practice. These people routinely break their oaths and are never prosecuted for it. They pass bills they never read. They take bribes. They do "favors" for contributors. They drink and drive and get away with murder. They do drugs and say I'm sorry. They seduce interns in the whitehouse and sell the Lincoln Bedroom. They commit fraud and perjure themselves. They routinely leak top secret material even when it puts Americans in harm's way. They commit treason. They make backroom deals that sell out their constituents but "We the People" keep electing them.
So again, I ask you. WHO is going to prosecute them and for what?
For NOT knowing a crime was being committed?
How many people who have EVER run for president were NOT natural born citizens of this country? Were they to act completely differently with this one, a sitting Senator, one of THEM???
The CRIME here is Obama himself knowingly, wilfully, and intentionally running for an office he KNEW he could not qualify for. But PROVE IT!!!
You can "demand" all day and the Fifth does apply because you can NOT force a person to incriminate themselves and the crime was already in motion when he declared his candidacy. He can't even be prosecuted for the fraudulent COLB because he did not forge it, never personally acknowledged it or disavowed it, and he can not be forced to. All he has to do is remain silent and obedient.
I fear this man more than you can imagine, but I fear those who hatched this plot ever so much more because it IS ingenious. It is so TRULY evil that whoever is behind it would no more think twice about you or me or my child, let alone this country, than the man in the moon.
Obama is a one trick pony. He does what he is told. The power behind him is evil personified.
Now,if you think this post is worth nothing more than a backhanded insult, go for it, but maybe someone else might be interested. Thanks ever so much.
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.