Lou Dobbs Talking about Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue

20th Amendment, Section 3:

"...if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified..."

The Constitution, contrary to your opinion, is abundantly clear on this topic. If Obama had been shown to have failed to qualify between the election and the inauguration, Vice President elect Biden would have acted as President until a President would have qualified.

There would have been no new electors, and no handing over the presidency to the loser of the election.

The same principle would have to apply after the inauguration. If Obama is shown to have failed to qualify, Vice President Biden would become the Acting President until a new President would qualify.

The 25th Amendment allows the Vice President to become the actual President only in cases of removal, death or resignation. If Obama is fraudulent, he was never the President in the first place. Biden could only become the Acting President.

The 22nd Amendment allows for the possibility of the Acting President to carry out the rest of a term:

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

It would be a dark day for our nation, not only living with the shame of having a fraudulent president, but having an unstable man like Joe Biden become the Acting President. He would be an instant lame duck, and America would be weakened.

But the Constitution must be followed, no matter how painful it might be.

The Constitution, contrary to your opinion, is abundantly clear on this topic.

***

I KNOW the Constitution - and it is NOT abundantly clear in this situation.

The 20th Amendment provides for the SEPARATE election of the President and Vice-President in order to avoid the situation such as what happened with Burr and Jefferson.

The relevant ORIGINAL test read as follows:

Article II - The Executive Branch, Section 1 - The President

” ... The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, ... “

This is what caused the problem with Burr and Jefferson.

This is what corrected the problem:

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; ... The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, ...”

HOWEVER, since MOST states choose the President-Elect and Vice-President Elect as a TICKET (one vote for two positions) - the situation IS NOT resolved at the state level.

I know MANY people that voted FOR Obama and have asked them if they would have voted for Biden at the top of the ticket - and they said HELL NO !!!

NOW, since I was playing Devil’s Advocate in my last post (assuming that Obama was ineligible in the first place), what do we have ???

We have an INELIGIBLE President-Elect who, if found to have been ineligible at after the election and BEFORE the certification of electors in each state, would NEVER HAVE BEEN certified in the first place.

Per each state’s Constitution then, the next ELIGIBLE person with the next most votes (McCain) would hav been certified.

McCain’s electors would have gone to the Electoral College AND NOT Obama’s.

HOWEVER, the Electoral College WAS seated and Obama was elected (albeit frauduently in this scenario).

So, what do we do about this - if Obama is ineligible ???

You could seat a “NEW” Electoral College with McCain electors only, or the more I think about it, you could simply DISQUALIFY Obama’s votes from the original Electoral College. Per the Constitution, the person with the next most votes (McCain with about 180) is then the winner.

NOW, what about Biden ???

He MIGHT be able to claim that his election was valid - but those who voted FOR Obama in states where they use the “ticket” (1 vote, 2 positions) might sue claiming that they NEVER would have voted FOR Biden at the top of the ticket.

Certainly, SCOTUS would HAVE to be involved in this mess - if Obama was found to be ineligible.

SCOTUS would have to determine if the original Obama votes would be disqualified from the original Electoral College or if a “NEW” Electoral College would be constituted. They would also have to rule whether Biden was duly elected - based on the “ticket” vote (causing a McCain/Biden administration). Or, would SCOTUS rule that Palin was elected since she was along for the ride with McCain’s electors.

Lastly, what would SCOTUS do to the voters that felt “disenfranchised” ??? GOP would want McCain/Palin - based on the fraud. Most DEMs would want Biden - and for him to assume the Presidency under the 20th and/or 25th Amendments, while some DEMs would feel cheated since they NEVER would have voted Biden at the top of the ticket.

In this event, SCOTUS might “split the baby”, calling the election null and void and order a new one. The Speaker of the House would become the new President temporarily.

The relevant text follows:

20th Amendment:

” ... 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 elect shall 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 ...”

Congress, by law, provided for the following:

United States Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19:

” ... (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 ...”

If a new election was ordered, then SCOTUS would have determined that Obama and Biden’s win was a fraud. Since Bush and Cheney’s terms expired on January 20th, 2009, Nancy Pelosi would become President temporarily.

You are right that we must follow the Constitution, but the Framers COULD NOT have envisioned EVERY scenario - such as if “this is Tuesday, it must be Belgium, except on alternate Fridays”. This is one of those scenarios.

In these cases, we must look to the “original intent” of the Framers and apply common sense reasoning to each messed up situation.

The danger is quoting the Constitution and then giving YOUR opinions on what the remedy is, when the Constitution plainly states the remedy.

***

Excuse me - the Constitution has a remedy in a situation where an ELIGIBLE President for whatever reason has to leave office. The Vice-President then become President, I do not argue there.

Where I argue is that the candidates on an INELIGIBLE ticket were certified and sworn in BEFORE the ineligibility was discovered. The premise in this case is that Obama was ALWAYS ineligible, only we did not know it.

The Constitution EXPRESSLY states that NO person constitutionally ineligible shall be President - PERIOD. End of story for him. He was NEVER President even though he was sworn in. Furthermore, EACH state’s Constitution and laws EXPRESSLY forbid ANYONE constitutionally ineligible from being certified as the winner of their Presidential election. This is in accordance with Article 6, Paragraph 2, the so-called “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution:

” ... 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding ...”

Given these provisions in the U.S. Constitution and the states’ Constitutions (which you want to STRICTLY adhere to), Obama WAS NEVER eligible and COULD NEVER be certified in ANY state. Therefore, HIS electors (which are separate individuals from the McCain electors who were NOT selected) were FRAUDULENTLY installed in the Electoral College last January.

A way to correct this is to convene a “NEW” Electoral College with electors for the “NEW” winner in each state, which is McCain. The “NEW” Electoral College would then vote for President and McCain would win.

NOW, you say there is NO provision for a “NEW” Electoral College in the Constitution - true. So, even if we use the “OLD” Electoral College, here is the deal ...

Lets say that the “OLD” Electoral College’s original vote stands anyway. It was something like 365-173 for Obama. BUT, Obama CANNOT be President. He is disqualified. BUT, McCain DOES NOT have a majority of the total number of electors.

Therefore, per the 12th Amendment:

” ... and if no such person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote ... and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice ...”

The House of Represntatives CAN ONLY choose from a list of UP TO three people who were voted for by the Electoral College. That number in 2008 was TWO - Obama (who is ineligible) and McCain. Now it is true that McCain ONLY won 22 States out of 51 (including DC), so he would have to pick up 4 States in the House of Representatives. But, that would probably NOT be a problem given that the vote would occur NOW (after the fact) and people have seen the job that Obama has been doing - the pressure would be on the House to vote for McCain (or else risk their jobs).

HERE IS A CASE I STUDIED IN LAW SCHOOL - IT IS ANALOGOUS TO THIS SITUATION:

A man dies and has two inheritors, one is left $1 million, the other nothing - WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE $1 MILLION INHERITOR IS A BLOOD RELATIVE. OTHERWISE, THE MONEY GOES TO THE OTHER ONE, ASSUMING HE IS A BLOOD RELATIVE.

No one questions the first inheritor’s eligibility, since it has been long assumed that he is legal. The $1 million inheritor dies and leaves the $1 million to his son, but it is subsequently learned that the $1 million relative WAS NOT A BLOOD RELATVE.

Does the son still inherit ??? OF COURSE NOT !!! The $1 million inheritor’s estate HAS TO TURN THE MONEY OVER TO THE OTHER INHERITOR (AND HE IS A BLOOD RELATIVE)!!!

The subject of the case was whether the $1 million inheritor’s estate was liable for interest and damages - but that is another story ... The analogy here is that Obama is the $1 million inheritor, McCain is the other inheritor, and Biden is the son.

NOW, the question is whether this situation (above) affects Biden’s eligibility as Vice-President in states (most of them) where BOTH candidates for President AND Vice-President run on the same ticket. It is a 2-for-1 deal. This is where SCOTUS would likely have to step in and rule.

In states (if any) where he ran separately and there was a distinct vote for him solely, I think Biden could keep his electors. In states where he was voted together with Obama in one vote as a ticket (most states), I am not so sure.

The GOP could claim that there were a substantial number of voters who WOULD HAVE NOT voted for him if it had been Biden/Obama and NOT Obama/Biden.

The DEMs could claim that they were hoodwinked by Obama and would, thus, be “disenfranchised” if Biden were also disqualified.

So, I see a few possible scenarios that SCOTUS could implement:

1. McCain President, based on a fraudulent election, assuming either a “NEW” Electoral College or with the “OLD” Electoral College using the House of Representatives option. If the “NEW” Electoral College was used, Palin would be Vice-President and Biden would be SOL.

2. McCain President, as above, but Biden keeping his electors that were selected for him separately, but losing his “ticket” electors. Neither Biden nor Palin would have a majority and, per the 12th Amendment, the Senate would have to vote, and (presumably) Biden would be Vice-President, given the current 60 seat DEM majority.

3. The election is declared null and void and a new election is ordered. Per the 20th Amendment, Section 3 and United States Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19, the Speaker of the House (Pelosi) becomes acting President until the new election is over.

In the future, the way to avoid this mess is:

1. Have the Federal Election Commission certify that ALL candidates are eligible PRIOR to each election. Currently, each State gets to certify, but that usually just involves the candidate signing a piece of paper - with no verification whatsoever.

You might say that fraud CANNOT happen - WELL IT DID IN THE LAST ELECTION. The Socialist Worker’s Party candidate (Roger Calero) was actually on the ballot in at least 5 states - and he had been scheduled to be on the ballot in at least 2 more (LA and WA, I think), but he got caught. Calero was born in ... wait for it ... Nicaragua !!!

2. Have the positions of President and Vice-President VOTED ON SEPARATELY at the state level. That way each voters intent FOR EACH POSITION will be clear.

FINALLY, you say that the Constitution is inviable - not true. Otherwise, you WOULD NOT have Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Mirand v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, or District of Columbia v. Heller, to name a few. In EACH of these cases, the question WAS NOT EXPRESSLY STATED in the Constitution. These cases relied upon the “original intent” of the Framers and those that wrote the subsequent Amendments.

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.