Posted on 09/15/2009 7:45:03 PM PDT by pissant
A team of taxpayer-supported lawyers arguing on behalf of President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office say not even the U.S. Supreme Court has any input into the question at this point, and such cases should be barred from the courts.
"The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office," said a brief filed by government lawyers in a California lawsuit over Obama's eligibility under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the White House.
That's because, the brief states, "the examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress."
The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of a number of plaintiffs alleging that Obama is not constitutionally eligible for office. The case, being handled by attorney Orly Taitz, who now has been joined by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has a tentative trial date of Jan. 26, 2010.
Before then, however, U.S. District Judge David Carter is scheduled to hear the government's demand that the case be thrown out.
The arguments submitted by acting U.S. Attorney George S. Cardona and assistant U.S. Attorneys Leon Weidman, Roger E. West and David A. DeJute, say the Constitution further specifies if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives has the authority to select the president, "and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates' qualifications."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“...(disconnect your printer first)”
Is that legal?
Sounds like “Chicago Speak”.
Constitution
Article II
Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
As you can clearly see impeachment is for Presidents, etc, not ineligible usurpers. If one is ineligible it means they cannot be President, ever.
It's much like an unconstitutional statute:
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
A very succinct way to put it.
Saaalute!
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
***
Exactly !!!
So, we agree that if Obama is ineligible, then his inauguration is invalid, and all laws, treaties, appointments, etc. that he signed would also be invalid.
The longer this goes on - the more mess we could be in ... such as TARP, Stimulus, the Budget, etc.
And then there is a question of whether Biden’s inauguration as VEEP is valid ...
What a friggin’ mess !!!
Now that's the 6.4 trillion dollar question, isn't it?
Several plaintiffs are under such an oath. As military officers they are executive officers of the United States and are under the oath. So they have the same standing to demand that proof. That's exactly what they are doing in Judge Carter's court.
Seriously, thanks E. I will try it. But I’m blaming you when I get wrong.:)
Lots I imagine.
Your question is good but I think a better question would be what will the legal system do and that answer is nothing leaving a very slippery slope for those of us who are deeply concerned about our constitution.
The Oct 05 date is the date that Judge Carter will rule on the Government's dismissal motion, and if he rejects it, likely order full discovery to begin and that the magistrate judge begin issuing subpoenas for the documents and other items that the parties are even now compiling lists of. (Or more likely have them ready to go!).
The addition of Kreep, as attorney for a couple of the plaintiffs who were formerly represened by Taitz. doesn't change any of that, and was done at the very first hearing, where the trial date was also set, tentatively that is.
It's at least not unconstitutional. Biden is a natural born citizen, he was a Senator for longer than 14 years so the residency requirement is met, and Lord knows he's over 34.
Impeachment for fraud would be possible, but ain't going to happen.
We can live with a few years of incompetence. We've done that before.
Meanwhile, the people may begin hunting Democrats, and RINOS, in the streets with dogs.
>>> We are actually in agreement. The principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli apply to make one a natural-born citizen, and jus sanguinis means the person in question has two citizen parents.<<<
Cool... as long as it means he’s ineligible.
Hi. Could you add me to the ping list? Thanks.
How dare they treat the president so disrepectfully!
He ought to shove his long-form birth certificate right in their face and tell them to bite it! While he’s at it, he ought to hit them with his pass port history, as well! That would show them!
We have the DOJ lawyers on the run if this is the only argument they can come up with.
The intent of the founders concerning Article II, s 1 of the Constitution has never been adjudged.This is the real fear of the DOJ and Obama. The judge who does so will be ever famous in US History.
You bet its NOT over.
“President’s lawyers say eligibility question over”
Yeah. And Satan says the question of him being a liar is over. He’s not, he says.
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.