Posted on 02/12/2011 8:34:33 AM PST by Uncle Sham
have heard that argument and I do not give it any weight. It is much like the argument in the opinion to the Republican’s by the Harvard law professor and the hired lawyer that McCain was eligible.
The Carter opinion was written by a Perkins clerk on leave to work as a clerk for Carter for the purpose of massaging the result in the Carter case which Baer viewed as a real threat. It is just more self serving argument which isn’t going to go anywhere in the real world if this ever gets to issue before the Supreme Court.
Very interesting
See FReep mail. :-)
The two parent rule is dismissed by some because it serves their own self interests..not protecting the Constitution.
I figure if even an uneducated idiot like me gets it, it must be obvious to everyone.
The research done on FR is an education in itself.
Here is a quote from your link:
"This means, a person can be qualified to be President under Amendment XX and still be ineligible under Article II for the job"
The eligibility requirements in section two plainly states that "No Person" can legally be President if they do not meet the standards. No Person. Ask anyone what the "qualifications" are for President and they will say the three things in Article two along with winning a majority of Electoral votes and having them certified by Congress. Dismissing the words "No Person" in Article two, section one is more of a mistake. In addition, the term "President elect" can only legally be associated with that person for whom Congress has certified a winning number of Electoral College votes. Until this certification has occurred, we really don't know who a President elect might be.
This being the case, the word "qualified" in section three pertains to whomever is "President elect". If a "President elect" exist, it is only AFTER Congress has certified the Electoral College results so how can the term "qualified" have anything to do with the Electoral College? In fact, the second part of section three plainly states that someone OTHER than the "President elect" or "Vice President elect" can eventually be named President. This "other" person might not have received any Electoral College votes or even ran for the office yet there is that term "shall have qualified" pertaining to them as well.
"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.”
Your argument that the term "qualified" pertains to whoever Congress selects is defeated by the language in the amendment itself. The first instance showing that "qualified" does not pertain to being "selected" is Congress "declaring who shall then act as President" and the second instance is "one who is to act shall be selected". In both of these instances, the choice has been made yet there is still a "shall have qualified" occurring after these passages. This seems to contradict the term "qualified" having anything to do with being selected by Congress doesn't it?
The term "qualified" obviously has meaning and a purpose or it would not be in the text. If the term doesn't refer to the Electoral College results then it can only refer to something else involving "qualifications" as it pertains to the office of President. As I have pointed out, the eligibility requirements are the ONLY thing left in the Constitution at this juncture. What else could it refer to?
Its a mistake that the Obama legal team has no problem with in justifying why the courts have no jurisdiction over matters of eligibility in the Carter trial. Here's a snippet from the article posted on WND on February 13th of last year:
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."
Further, the Constitution grants to Congress the responsibility "for selecting a president when a candidate elected by the Electoral College does not satisfy the Constitution's eligibility requirements."
I'll link to their legal argument if you like. It basically uses the Twentieth amendment, section three as a roadblock to any other entity but Congress having authority to evaluate the issue of "eligibility". My point exactly.
What we need is for the states, on their own, to begin thinking about passing a "Usurper Detection Act"
There is nothing to prevent a state from passing a law requiring that the President must file his PROOF of meeting eligibility requirements with the state and that such a filing is open to public challenge in court.
Such a law could stipulate that any legislation signed by a President who refuses or is unable to meet this requirement to file shall be declared null and void within the borders of the state. No orders affecting any of the states citizens from such a usurper would have legal standing within the borders of the state. In addition, the act could command all legislators at the national level to institute whatever legal mechanism is required to challenge the standing of such a usurper.
It seems to me, any state-passed law that ENFORCES the Constitution would be judged as "Constitutional". Perhaps this can be done through a ballot initiative if the legislators refuse to look into it. We do not have to WAIT until the next Presidential election to handcuff a possible usurper. This can be done NOW and immediately protect a state's citizens from having to live with ILLEGALLY made legislation or orders.
Term Limits Revolution
(An Act of Self Defense by Erne Lewis)
http://ernelewis.com/An-Act-of-Self-Defense.php
I was shocked at what the Feds have been doing at the local level all over the country while we were focused on the next terrible legislation Congress was about to pass.
Worth the time to watch.
Sure there is, in the original post, it clearly defines Congress as having the power of certification. A judge could simply toss out any verification process, or find that the party certification is enough for a state ballot. A presidential candidate's failure to properly file in a particular state has been thrown out in the past, that the clear intention and filing in the majority of states is enough to override any state election laws requiring a candidate to be on the ballot.
Personally, I don't think it's going to be an issue unless we nominate some brain dead idiot like Rudy McRomney, and even if we did, Congress can simply certify Biden as president.
Enough states initiating ANY type of similar laws would necessarily put the federales on notice. What happens after that could get interesting.
FWIW, and if you aren't aware, there are about half a dozen states with "eligibility" legislation either passed or proposed in their state legislatures. Since the states are responsible for running elections they can pretty well lay down the law in most cases. Qualifying to be placed on each state's ballot is certainly within the purview of each state. The "eligibility" legislation will probably throw sand in odinga's gears come 2012 since he will likely not be able to prove his eligibility to get on their ballots. We're talking some major P!$$!NG contests coming up. Doesn't help us much today but at least we'll be rid of the kenyan marxist in a couple years; God willing.
Thanks, good idea.
BTTT.
To watch later.
Even if these bills don't pass, that they have been proposed at all is very encouraging.
Behind eack bill stands at least one really **TICKED-OFF** legislator! Some of these bills have dozens of sponsors. All of these legislators have political clout in their state or they wouldn't have been elected, and many are attorneys.
If Obama is not eligible, the man is in trouble at least for 2012.
Personally,...For the sake of justice and for the integrity of the rule of law and our Constitution, I would like to see this properly resolved now. If Obama deserves prison, then “big house” rather than the White House is where he should be living.
I should hope someone with the moxie and the knowledge would investigate this....maybe it is a way out of the Obama destruction.
Which is why I said that since both weren't eligible, the electors should go back to the general election and determine which ticket met the requirements.
It seems to me, any state-passed law that ENFORCES the Constitution would be judged as “Constitutional”.
No,our current “leadership” would consider it a violation of their right to enforce the Constitution. Arizona is a perfect example, obama refuses to enforce our immigration laws and does not want any state to do so.
But, if most of the states would pass such a law ,it would send a strong message to the federal government.
3 Videos of an interview with the founder of Oath Keepers on the topic of what should be done at the state level:
Preparing for Obama’s.....
I was shocked at what the Feds have been doing at the local level all over the country while we were focused on the next terrible legislation Congress was about to pass.
Worth the time to watch.
Yes, it was very worthwhile watching. It goes to show that people in law enforcement are increasingly becoming aware of the coming Obama 9/11 and its aftermath (never let a good crisis go to waste). If they side with the constittuion, they will stand down from supporting the usurper when the call comes from the feds to implement marshal law.
That's just a wonderful suggestion but unfortunately no legal basis for doing it that way.
Is what you are suggesting that Congress ought to adopt that as the method for providing a substitute? This isn't going to happen because Congress doesn't view votes for some marginal third party as indicative of broad electoral support for what they might have for policy views.
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.