Wasn’t Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, when Obama declared his candidacy? I wonder what happened? /s
( I am very discouraged about the future of our nation. This is really about the fundamental moral character of our nation. It is bigger than just Obama. )
The only way it will be dealt with is in the states.
It only takes a state or two to refuse a candidate on the ballot for lack of proof to end their campaign right there.
Listeners and readers infer.
Speakers and writers imply.
The Congress of the United States does not have a great record of following the Constitution of the United States. Especially over the past 50 years or so.
[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.]
Amen to that.
Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Inertia, however, is the only way a government can survive. Even if you found Obama’s vault certificate listing natural birth in Kenya, his Indonesia passport listing him as a natural citizen of that nation, Occidental College registration listing him as a foreign student, I doubt that congress would decertify him as president, nor would the senate convict and remove him from office to make Biden president. And congressional changes to require the vault form of the birth certificate before they certify the electoral college results aren't going to happen, because of the gordian knot that would be created by having a prior unconstitutionally serving president and the legal peril that would be put in every law, budget and action by him.
The mistake was made, but with the economy on life support, the fed printing money faster than Hasbro can print Monopoly dollars, the bungling of Egypt as well as almost all other foreign affairs, the question has to become: How do we prevent the GOP from nominating anyone who would make this fool look competent to serve a second term? And that, really, is where our attention should be directed.
It is first important to recognize that in accordance with the Constitution, a Vice President elect was certified and is eligible.
Then, the significant language of Amendment 20, Section 3 is: [I]f the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified . . . .
So where we are today is pretty clear--we have an eligible person certified as Vice President--Joe is and has been since January of 2009, Acting President.
The succession provisions, getting Joe out and a legitimate person in as a result of the 2008 election is also very tight. To get the Vice President in as President under the 25th amendment, you need to have removal, death, or resignation of a President. You can never get that with Zero because he isn't President--he wasn't eligible.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is also pretty tight--there are actually three qualifications to hold the office of President: Age 35; 14 year resident; and natural born citizen. Suppose a person who was only 34 years old was certified as elected? Any doubt that he would not be eligible and could not hold the office? Not likely.
And the process of choosing the person from the electoral college vote is also pretty tight. To get an elected candidate, you need to get an individual who is on the list of having received the most votes. In the case of 2008, that question is pretty simple--the only other person who got votes is John McCain and he isn't eligible to hold the office either (for the reason that he was born in Colon Panama which is not now and never has been a part of the Untied States).
Where you get from here is a significant question of Constitutional Law.
My own opinion is that the Court would infer from the last two clauses of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, a power in Congress to decide how to choose the President. And that view is in part supported by an informal opinion from one of the DC law firms to the leadership of the Dem Congress in the 111th Congress.
The possibilities discussed were: Simply elevate the VP; move to the line of succession; or look further back to Dem primary votes. Each of those possibilities identifies a different person and there was no consensus. Although my own view is that if that had ever come to fruition, we would have had our first woman President and her name would have been Nancy. Didn't happen. Too late to reconvene the 111th Congress at this point. Who knows what the Republican's would do today if asked.
There are several messages in this--one of which is that in any election in which the President is decided by more than one electoral vote, an elector who is not in a state that mandates his vote with criminal penalties should be encourage to cast his one vote for the VP on the winning ticket for president.
Anyhow, here we sit, grasping at straws in hopes of undoing the presumed election of a president. One who any right minded citizen instinctively knows has set a path that will, if allowed to proceed, destroy America. By just about any measure it's obvious he and his politburo are treading our Constitution into the mud. Where are some of our newly minted TEA Party congressmen on this? Why have we not heard a peep out of anybody? A Republican controlled House is not without juice to place this travesty and treason in every town square in the country. And yet, nothing.
Why Was the Electoral College Created?
by Marc Schulman The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.
One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change.
The method of "proving" qualification is not prescribed. I agree completely that the primary blame for this fiasco lies with Congress, all 535 of them. Not one challenge after the electoral ballots were counted. Not a single one, and all it takes for a challenge is two Congresspeople, one Senator, and one Rep.
The federal government is completely out of control, and this is not the first case of utter dereliction of duty. See too "coin money and regulate the value thereof." These perfumed princes get all the perks, and none of the accountability. And at the same time, they are stripping power and wealth from the people.
I believe that Pelosi satisfied the necessary Congressional requirement - although this might have been done fraudulently.
I’ve been saying all along that congress should be taken down along with the usurper and Pelosi. Combine that with the Supremes ‘evading’ it and what have you got? Not the nation created by our forefathers, that’s for sure.
“By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” With every reason to believe that he does not, 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?” http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-congressional-research-office-agrees/
Remember, it was Cheney who failed to ask for objection or question of the electoral vote as required by the US Code of Federal Regulations. See at the 27 minute mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcGt8hQZzg4&feature=related
I can’t seem to find the US Code of Federal Regulations section number that requires the question. Anyone have it? It should be at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html but the search window won’t pull it up.
Equating the word “qualified” in the 20th Amendment, with the word “eligible” in Article II, section 1. This is a mistake. jbjd (whose posting privileges were suspended on FR is not able to personally correct the fiction Uncle Sham has posted there, disguised as fact)wrote about this fallacy some time back, in
http://jbjd.org/2010/12/31/qualified-%e2%89%a0-eligible/
Very interesting
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?