I just reviewed 3 USC 15. Interesting stuff. But I don’t see that it speaks to Presidential qualifications. I do see that it allows for members of the Senate or the House to object to the recording of electoral votes from any given State. But nobody did that when they had the chance.
Even if someone does that, it just goes to the Senate or House to be sorted out. And how would they do that? What standard or process would they use to determine if a candidate was qualified? What definition of natural born would they use? The issue might get to the House or Senate, but we’d be right back where we started. With no clearly defined process, standard, or definition.
So what did I miss?
It seems you missed applying the statute to the issue at hand. That issue is not, as you suggest, whether there is a process for establishing the qualifications of a President elect. Such qualifications are set out, as you are no doubt well aware, in Article II of the Constitution. Any argument that the qualifications are uncertain or not capable of precise determination is nonsense.
Rather, the issue is whether there was a statutory process for certifying presidential qualifications during the 2009 Joint Session of Congress; and, if so, whether that process was followed. The session is called for the limited and sole purpose of certification following each presidential election. The session is not called just to determine whether the Electoral College’s work was without error, but as the Dems demonstrated in 2005 the session may also consider any irregularities in the election process. To put a finer point on it, if the College flawlessly cast a majority of its votes for Mickey Mouse, 3 USC 15 provides the process by which the Congress is to resolve the matter.
…how would they do that? What standard or process would they use…
Recommend you reread the statute. In any event, either chamber could have formally requested of HI formal copies of Obama’s birth records; not just a short form, but all birth records. Not many members of Congress would be willing to certify a non-U.S. citizen as president and the Dems would have thrown Obama under the bus in favor of Clinton.
What definition of natural born would they use?
Obviously they would use the definition accepted by both the House and the Senate. Both chambers were/are loaded with attorneys and former judges. Given that the weight of USSC decisions together with contemporaneous views directly addressing the matter indicate that at the relevant time in our history NBC was only available to a citizen born in the U.S. of two citizen parents the outcome should have been predictable. If the chambers were unable to agree, one or both could have applied to the USSC for an opinion.
But nobody did that when they had the chance.
They did not have the chance, Swain, and in the face of the public outcry over Obama’s lack of apparent qualification, that may have been the biggest fraud in the history of our nation
Why didn’t Cheney follow the statute and call for objection as expressly required by the statute? It was not his first rodeo, certainly he knew what he was doing.
I have several theories. The first, and the theory most favorable to the Republican leadership, is that it had quality intelligence that Clinton, Obama’s obvious replacement, presented a greater threat to national security. That seems hard to believe, seeing the anti-American surge now in play in the U.S. and the world at large. Nonetheless, even if it was a close call, the leadership may have believed that Clinton was the more skilled politician and Obama was an amateur they could better control.
The theory most favorable to Cheney, is that he knew the fix was in but wanted to corrupt the process in order to provide a basis for a more responsible Congress to review the certification.
Other theories are not as favorable.