Replies

So if I went and sat in the White House and managed to not get thrown physically out on my ear in a physical coup.... then I too could be recognized as the President?

No, because you weren't elected to the office and sworn into it. Don't be ridiculous.

What I hear you saying is that the only power the people have to ensure that a usurper doesn’t hold the office is physical violence - literally throwing him out on his ear. Is that what you’re saying?

No, that is very clearly not what I said. If that's what you heard, then you've gone off the deep end.

It doesn’t matter if he can "act as President"? That REALLY sounds like "Constitution be damned." Did you really mean to say that?

No, that's not what I said or implied. In fact, I said and implied exactly the opposite of that.

Who is legally authorized to administer the oath of office to the Pres elect and VP elect? How does one get authorized to do that? Who was authorized to administer the oath to LBJ, and what authorized them?

The Constitution does not stipulate who shall administer the oath to the President-elect and Vice President-elect. Therefore anyone vested with the authority to administer an oath of office to a member of the Executive branch can administer it. Traditionally, that has been the Chief Justice.

I believe Title 5 of the U.S. Code stipulates who may administer an oath.

No one in particular was authorized to administer the oath to LBJ. Sarah T. Hughes, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Texas administered the oath to LBJ in a conference room aboard Air Force One at Love Field, Dallas, Texas.

And exactly where does the Constitution authorize the person who administers the oath to interpret and apply the 20th Amendment? I know the Third Article authorizes the federal judiciary to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws, but you’re talking about a single person outside the process of the courts. Where is it ever said in the Constitution that a single person, without hearing any case or considering any evidence, can interpret and apply the 20th Amendment?

The Constitution doesn't say that and you know it. When I said that the person administering the oath stipulates that the oath was properly administered, I didn't imply that he would interpret the 20th Amendment.

We don’t lawfully know whether Obama was elected to the office or not, because the law that dictates how the electoral results are to be certified was not followed. No judge has ruled on whether that breach of the law invalidates the certification. The federal judiciary can’t just step in and say, “Wait, wait, wait, that doesn’t count!” They can only decide there was a problem when a case is brought before them, and to this point the case which appears to have standing hasn’t yet made it to SCOTUS. It was dismissed because the law was ignored by the judge so the judge could claim that not only had Twitter already decided the case, but not enough is at stake. (cough)

How do you know I haven’t taken an oath to faithfully execute the office of the presidency? If I have taken it would that make me be the president? What WOULD make me the president?

I know you’re going to say I’m being silly but my point in all this is that there are LEGAL requirements that must be fulfilled before a person running for president can “act as President”. The Constitutional requirements are:

1) must win the electoral vote, as certified by Congress according to the Constitution as codified through statute
2) must “qualify” by Jan 20th. The qualifications for Presidential eligibility involve, age, residency, and natural born citizenship status
3) must take a specific oath of office

Those are all legal steps. If *I* stand up and say I met the requirements that doesn’t make any legal difference. And anybody in the world should be able to sue me to show that I did NOT meet the requirements just because I said I did. If there is any controversy or case presented which questions my claims, the federal judiciary is to decide whether I am right or the claims against me are right.

The first 2 steps have been contested. If #1 hasn’t been met then step #3 is no more legal proof of presidency than if I made the oath here in my bedroom. I can say it all I want, but if I don’t meet the Constitutional requirements my simply saying it is so doesn’t make it legally so.

Chief Justice Roberts could swear that I took the presidential oath here in my bedroom but that would not make me the president OR give me the right to “act as President”. And anybody who wanted to contest my presidency should have a right to have the requirements of the Constitution interpreted and applied to my case. Even if Chief Justice Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to me it wouldn’t make me the President, or give me the right to “act as President”. The requirements ALL have to be met.

And it is up to the federal judiciary to decide all controversies and cases arising from the Constitution and the laws.

Until the federal judiciary decides the cases, not one of us can know whether the requirements have ALL been lawfully met. And it is very, very interesting to me that all 3 steps have some SNAFU involved so that there could be question as to whether ANY of them have been lawfully met. All the SNAFU’s coming at the hands of people who knew far in advance what they SHOULD legally do but who have somehow botched it up. The only one the Obama folks even PRETENDED to care about being done the legally correct way was the oath of office, and even at that the second time the oath was taken they didn’t allow video to be made of it so we have to depend on the testimony of the witnesses who were all Obots except Roberts.

The only reason Obama is PRESUMED to be POTUS is because he’s had the audacity to move into the White House and nobody has kicked him out yet. The federal judiciary is still thinking about whether they should do their jobs on deciding whether the Constitutional requirements have been met.