Posted on 05/21/2009 5:57:28 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
bttt
"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?"
"Sorry, but where does it say that in the constitution ?
Your reasoning is -at best-ingenious.
Let me go back to my original remark: If you have evidence (other than suppositions, tweets and blog postings) the president is not a citizen, then PRESENT it !'
to which I replied:
Tell me, what do YOU think the term "or, if the President elect shall have failed to qualify" mean? Once again, in fairness to those who are arguing this point on the original thread (this thread), you should be arguing your case there (this thread). Sorry, but where does it say that in the constitution ? Your reasoning is -at best-ingenious. Let me go back to my original remark: If you have evidence (other than suppositions, tweets and blog postings) the president is not a citizen, then PRESENT it !
I say the current occupants of our Congress have abdicated their authority. Obama is merely a symptom of the larger problem.
In 12-18 months, matters will come to a head, and the possibility of restoration will exist.
Matters are moving rapidly beyond the realm of legal maneuvers.
It's not my burden to prove that I am "qualified", or in other words, "eligible" to serve as President. This is CLEARLY the burden of the one seeking to occupy the office, the one referred to as the "President elect" in section three of the twentieth amendment.
The term "if the President elect" shall have failed to qualify is talking about an action by the "President elect" that "failed". It is quite specific and extremely CLEAR that it is the President elect who must "qualify", it is HIS burden, thus, to present his qualifying evidence. It is also quite clearly stated that it is the burden of Congress to ensure this is done because they are the ones who must enact the Presidential succession if it has not been.
I agree to some extent. We would all benefit from continuing the legal pressure to the point of the "system" PROVING itself a fraud. Once this occurs, we ALL know what we are dealing with and our response would be better focused.
This case forces them to either ignore it and "cherry pick" which parts of the Constitution they want to obey (would result in their immediate loss of credibility, as the very document giving them their authority over us would become worthless) or they can obey it as written and do the right thing.
It gets worse, our troops are fighting for literally millions illegals aliens, that have no fear serving, or dying for the U.S., yet stay behind to reap all the benefits and freedoms in America.
Am I correct?
Thanks for that Uncle Sam. My question is tho WHY will the Supreme Court not hear the cases already before them? Why have they chosen this when it is of the utmost importance? It is their ONLY mission to uphold the Constitution of the United States and they swear to do that before being seated on the Court.
I think your idea of peppering the Congress and Senate with this is good but everyone has dismissed it so far. I fear that a lot of folks don’t care if he’s an illegal alien President. The American public had such a suppository of hate up their A$$es against Pres. Bush that they were completely blinded. They wanted change, they got change but Terrible terrible change. The country will be changed alright but into something unrecognizable. CO
In my opinion, certainly anyone who is currently obligated by the Oath of office from Article six of the Constitution to "support this Constitution" is REQUIRED to ENFORCE it's provisions. This would include section three of the Twentieth amendment and the particular language which forces a "qualification" to be made by the President elect before being allowed to become President. Evasion of, non-enforcement of, or ignoring any part of the Constitution cannot be in any way, shape, or form defined as "supporting" it. Since supporting the Constitution is a 24 hour a day assignment, I would say that your elected officials at the state and Federal levels have the legal "standing" to do so whenever they wish.
exactly, now all we need is a pubbie congress member to take all this on.
I think one reason is that the cases themselves were improperly constructed from a variety of angles, standing, case, etc. When I say "improper" I mean that the cases and plaintiffs involved, because of the case angle and who filed it, made it legally easy for judges to side step the issue.
I think the "standing" issue has been solved with using the Oath of office to "support" the Constitution requirement from the language of the Constitution itself. Anyone who is bound by this oath is thus REQUIRED by the Constitution to "support" the Constitution. Section three of the Twentieth amendment is currently being ignored, or non-enforced, or possibly complied with but we have no evidence to confirm this. If it has been complied with, we the people have a right to know this, who complied?, where is the compliance documentation?, etc. If it has not been complied with, our elected officials are REQUIRED to ensure that the Constitution be obeyed and ENFORCED. I don't see how a judge can deny this case. To do so would be asking someone who is Constitutionally required to enforce the Constitution to ignore parts of it. It is not a pick and choose document.
In the end, it might take all of us filing legal charges against those who pretend to represent our interest but instead are undermining our children's future.
Read that oath from Article six.
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.”
This would include your STATE reprentatives and Senators at the state level as well. My point is, if they don't want to step up to the plate to do what they are required to do by the very document from which they derive their power to govern over us, then WE must legally go after them. All of them.
Well said! Until he provides access to all documents (BC, Passports, etc.) he should be forced to admit the truth, that he is hiding them from the people.
Keep this issue alive bump
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.