Congress is Responsible For the Eligibility Fiasco

It seems that we might have been directing our efforts to determine whether or not this nation has a legally serving President at the wrong target. Congress should not be left out of the debate as though they where not in some way involved in answering this question. They are very much involved and deserve our scrutiny. Congress is COMMANDED by the U.S. Constitution to verify eligibility of a President-elect or name a replacement. Here is the case.

First off, what is a “President elect” in the full legal sense of the description? Since we are talking about the Constitution, we must assume that the term is referred to ONLY in its legal sense. The identity of a "President elect" is not established at election time, nor is it established after the Electoral College cast their votes. It is only established once Congress has ratified the Electoral College votes as legal and binding.

Winning the election in November is just step one of a four-step process. Step two is the Electoral College. Step three is Congressional review and ratification of those results which finally establishes just who the President elect is. Step four is section three of the Twentieth amendment. Miss any one of these four steps and there is no LEGAL Constitutional President. Like perhaps, now.

”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.”

Note the time indicated in the initial passage. It clearly refers to that period AFTER Congress has ratified the Electoral College results because the beginning of a term of office can only occur once there is someone to "begin" that term. Not only this, but Congress ratifies the Electoral College on January 15th. The beginning of a Presidential term is January 20th which is after the Electoral College ratification process is completed.

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.“

Once again, from the 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.”

The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three of the Twentieth amendment 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.”

Section three of the Twentieth amendment comes in to play as the LAST step in a process to ensure that a President is in fact legal. To satisfy meeting the requirement of the Twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a President elect must present evidence that he meets its 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. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.

If someone does not have a birth certificate as the governor of Hawaii has stated, how was this proof of eligibility established? 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 cannot be serving as a legal president of the United States of America. Remember, the Constitution says in Article two, section one that "NO PERSON" who does not meet the eligibility requirements may serve as President. There is no wiggle room in this language.

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 section three of the Twentieth amendment), 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. The 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. Perhaps this issue would get addressed sooner if we started 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. This includes our brand new supposedly "Constitution loving" Tea Party" representatives.

>I don’t understand the process the states must follow. <

I haven’t gone through the entire thread to see if you got a better answer, but I will explain it as I understand it.

Each state has a person who is in charge of certifying the candidate as eligible. each state has it’s own process that they are supposed to follow.

The president has no authority over the state as to how they process their information. The information must conform to the constitution but may be amended by the state to be more stringent in gathering the data.
Again, the president has NO authority in this matter.

If a candidate is found to be ineligible they are taken off the ballot - the election continues as scheduled despite any court cases that begin as a result of the decision.
the state courts try to expedite the matter so that if a candidate is to be reinstated s/he can be put back on the ballot in time for th election.

Now, I am going to blow your mind.

Did you know that a case in my state .. one of the bluest of them all

Strunk v Paterson (Obama): First time in the USA since 1824; Judge has opined on what Natural Born citizen is; Concludes Obama is not a NBC.

yep, it’s true. Didn’t make the news, but here it is:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/363/827/Strunk_v_Paterson_Obama_:_First_time_in_the_USA_since_1824%3B_Judge_has_opined_on_what_Natural_Born_citizen_is%3B_Concludes_Obama_is_not_a_NBC..html

court papers are there as well.

I’ll BET MONEY that they allow him back on the ballot again though!

I am not an “expert” but the signatures do not match on many points.
the first N should end much lower than the line. In the first signature it does not
there should be spacing between the letters an_cy in her first name. In the first signature it does not
the capital P should be one clear fluid pen stroke. In the first signature it is not
the “e” in her last name should be higher on the line. In the first signature it is not.
The “s” in teh last name should have some loop in it. In the first signature it does not

I love the work that you have done here. And I REALLY applaud your efforts. But as I just posted to you on the other thread saying that they needed to verify Obama back then rather than now for political reasons. I can also see what is arguably a legal reason. :(

You, I presume copied the law word for word. I expect no less from a FReeper :)

In that case, let’s look at the pertinent and relevant TIME this needs to be done.

“3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President,”

Your assertion is correct that “It clearly refers to that period AFTER Congress has ratified the Electoral College results” But It also would appear that after that time period, this is no longer an option.

So the beginning term would be what then? perhaps 1 year? 1 day? 1 month?
We really don’t know do we. But I would say that 2+ years may well be stretching it.

It would appear that they are breaking it down as you said in 4 different parts. But each is successive and each is fairly limited in it’s scope of time. Although there is no actual time set as to what the “beginning of the term of the President” is, it would appear that it is also a limited time. Something that was intended to be short and successive in nature as well.

Would you agree with that or do you have a different take on the meaning and intention?

>Combine that with the Supremes ‘evading’ it and what have you got? Not the nation created by our forefathers, that’s for sure.<

I just read something regarding this. The supremes who have allowed this to go unheard on procedural objections. never actually having herd the case.

Professor Charles Rice on Obama’s ‘eligibility’ says:

“the rule requiring a plaintiff in a federal court proceeding to have a sufficient personal interest, or standing, to bring the suit provides needed assurance that suits will be seriously contested and will seek more than merely advisory opinions.”

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110227

So maybe, the supremes face the dilemma that all they can do under what they have been given to this point is offer an opinion?

I mean, do they even really have the power to remove him from office? Or is that power solely that of congress?

I think it would be great if they offered an opinion. That would certainly get congress moving if they ruled in favor that Obama was not a NBC. But if kegan and the wise Latino were there, can we even guarantee that?

have hope, look at this link. It will brighten your day, TRUST ME.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/363/827/Strunk_v_Paterson_Obama_:_First_time_in_the_USA_since_1824%3B_Judge_has_opined_on_what_Natural_Born_citizen_is%3B_Concludes_Obama_is_not_a_NBC..html

>the second most-asked question has been, “How could every single member of Congress… all 535 of them… fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama’s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?”<

and that is my point in a nut shell.

Imagine, a congress that has had the most historically low records of approval in our history, failing so miserably at this duty. Allowing the arguably the worst leader of all time to usurp the office of the president.

Can you imagine the unrest that this would cause for all of them and us? Not only would there be political backlash against both parties. But you could expect that there was complete division in the streets. Some people claiming it is a racist move, others demanding social programs be shut down. Obamacare, the stimulus, START treaty etc etc etc.
My lord, the problems would be endless. The country would be a laughing stock in the world.

Just so many problems that I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that the pictures we have seen from Egypt could be down town middle america in a New York Minute.

I want the man out of the white house two years ago and to wake up to this being a bad dream. But him being removed now, in this fashion, the more I think about it. The more it seems like we may be opening Pandora’s box.
It is a lose lose situation for us.

Even down to the fact that he picked the biggest idiot on Capital Hill to be the VP. Why in the world did he do that?
Because people would be afraid of him taking over in the event Obama was found out? Or maybe just some stupid fall guy? It just doesn’t look like any good outcomes from this point forward. Lady Liberty’s status is that of a battered woman now. :(

>They, imo, have no other option than to go back to the general election to see what “eligible” ticket recieved the most votes. The ticket recieving the most votes after McCain/Palin was Nader/Gonzales but iirc, Gonzales doesn’t meet the NBC (two US citizen parents) requirement. Next down the list was Barr/Root.

Smells like Barr should have standing in an eligibility case.<

I would think since the first ticket of Obama/Biden is ineligible that the entire dynamic of the election would be changed. Anyone should be able to challenge as long as they had some “skin in the race” but Alan keys hasn’t gotten anywhere unfortunately.

"But It also would appear that after that time period, this is no longer an option."

Let us agree for the sake of arguing the point that Congress did not confirm the two status requirements written in section three. This would still not make a person who is ineligible to serve as President "eligible". The requirements in Article two are not confusing. They plainly state that No Person can serve as President who fails to meet the eligibility requirements for the position. I don't see how anyone who "fails to qualify" due to the negligence of Congress can ever say that such negligence equals "qualification". In my opinion, if Obama has not proven to Congress that he "qualifies", he is still not a legal President.

I also don't see a time limit for establishing his legitimacy because the beginning of a President's term can only begin with a Constitutionally legal President. The Constitution via Section Three says exactly this because it is a requirement demanded of Congress. Why have the requirement if someone can sneak by it? No sneaking allowed. Except for Usurpers. Usurpers can be arrested.

"Imagine, a congress that has had the most historically low records of approval in our history, failing so miserably at this duty. Allowing the arguably the worst leader of all time to usurp the office of the president."

What is there to imagine? It's not like we will never know the truth about all of this. There's money to be made spilling the beans after this clown leaves the White House for anyone in the know. This means that instead of two years negligence, Congress would have given us four years worth. TWICE as destructive to the future of this nation.

This might be enough to finish off the good old U.S.A. once and for all because the necessary level of trust in our government to sustain obedience will have been destroyed completely. When I see our Congressmen and women to scared to demand a simple birth certificate from a potential Usurper, I think of all the young men and women who have given their lives in the cause of sustaining our freedoms. For what? These Congressmen and this fraud of a President? The days of reckoning are upon us. There are going to be angry people all over this nation. Maybe that's what they really want. Enough anger to dissolve this one nation into separate nations. Doing so frees THEM from the promises and obligations to all of us that they have made even though they knew it could not be afforded.

I think it is pretty much game over for us now.

read this article if you will

http://www.marinkapeschmann.com/2011/03/03/pentagon-report-reveals-financial-terrorism-suspected-in-2008-economic-crash/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+marinkapeschmann%2FRBXy+%28Marinka+Peschmann%29

I can give you the link to the original report as well if you need it.

But we wont have another election in the USA again. It is pretty much done.

Look at news today. China moving to be world currency by the end of the year. We will end up with Hyperinflation here, obama gets to declare martial law before the 2012 elections. He is running full steam ahead with everything because he knows that short of an act of god, nothing can stop him now.

meanwhile the entire middle east is imploding. Only Iraq is stable at this point. Muslims taking over .. moving here at break neck speeds.
The UK is at an all time food cost high
Oil is starting to take off, the Saudis moved to 113 per barrel today.

We are going from the richest country and best way of life ever known to a third world country in a few short years.

>What is there to imagine? It’s not like we will never know the truth about all of this. There’s money to be made spilling the beans after this clown leaves the White House for anyone in the know. This means that instead of two years negligence, Congress would have given us four years worth. TWICE as destructive to the future of this nation.<

I agree that people know and are being very quiet about it. But as of right now, face it we are being run by an oligarchy. they have completely slapped us in the face with our wishes and gone forward with what they think is best for us, ignoring the will of the people.

Are they likely to give up their power? Nope they aren’t.
If they don;t, do you really have hope that this will eventually get out? I wish I shared your enthusiasm and belief that eventually right will won out, even if it is motivated by greed.

>he is still not a legal President. <

I agree

>I also don’t see a time limit for establishing his legitimacy because the beginning of a President’s term can only begin with a Constitutionally legal President.<

By the exact wording I see what you are saying. But again, remember the intent. They are talking about the time period that the person holds office. No there is no time limit, especially since he usurped. But I think that the original intention was that it should be done in succession of steps.
the steps were outlined by yourself (again excellent work there BTW) and they were carried out.

certainly the founders NEVER imagined that anyone would usurp and get away with the charade as long as obama has. But then again, they also figured that the press would keep american politicians honest.

I think that they clearly had a short time in mind for these issues to be resolved.

<As dimwitted as the Average American Joe can be, I don’t think there will be riots on every street corner if the usurper were to be hauled out in handcuffs and a procession of conspirators, starting with Nancy, following him.<

well considering that Obama’s popularity has never really been married to his approval of policy. That is to say, people like him personally but not his policy.
Add that to how the unions have behaved, organizing for america, acorn etc etc etc. The media’s constant fawning over him and how they tend to portray everything against him as racism or ignorance.

Add it all up and I believe that there would be a lot of people working to destabilize us from within right on the streets. The media woudl fuel it and all of Obama’s community organizers would be in the front lines getting media attention. Even lazy entitlement minded people may be moved off their couches to incite more unrest.

"They can make a law but can Obambo declare it void by Presidential Order?"

The States are sovereign. The Feds cannot enact or affect legislation within a state except by legal challenge, such as is the case with the Arizona border enforcement laws. This means that a state can pass any sort of legislation it wants and only a Constitutional challenge can erase it.

Here's a law I would recommend each state enact. It would END everything we are discussing immediately.

Usurper Detection Legislation Should Be Passed within Each State

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.