West speaks to a crowd of about 400 at Tuesday night's town hall meeting in Jupiter.
Posted on 03/16/2011 5:38:50 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
West speaks to a crowd of about 400 at Tuesday night's town hall meeting in Jupiter.
“Who is going to tell us who this man is? Is he legally there or not?” said Karch. “What are we going to do to ensure that, if he isn’t legally there, it doesn’t happen again?”
Said West: “I will tell you this: That is the dog chasing its tail. The most important thing is, it’s the policies. That’s what we have to be standing on.”
The crowd of about 400 applauded, but Karch wasn’t satisfied.
“But if he’s not, it’s treason,” Karch said.
Said West: “You will waste more time worrying yourself to death about that instead of making sure that you expand the majority in the House of Representatives, you win back the U.S. Senate so that you can stand against the policies that are emanating out of the White House…
“What is your objective? Your objective is getting back to a constitutional republic principles and values. If you spend your time worrying about someone’s citizenship, you will never get to that objective.”
West didn’t offer his own opinion on Obama’s citizenship during the public forum. So PostOnPolitics asked him after the meeting.
“He is a citizen. He’s the president. I mean, that’s all I know. I am concerned about his policies,” West said.
I respect west and Bachmann. Both have come out and said that they have doubts about Obama’s eligibility. Both are also saying that to defeat him, we must just focus on the issues.
I believe that we are being told flat out that no matter what we do, we will never get a resolution to this issue.
In my heart I believe that neither of these people are RINO’s, as a matter of fact I think that they are both our best chance of returning to a strong republic.
I’ll forgo Obama’s eligibility issues at this point to make sure that we get him out of office and a genuine conservative in office. If that is the support that they need, I’ll do it.
I don’t like it, but I’ll do it.
Yeah, well Joy Behar answererd a question last night also. :)
Well I think it is very fair to say I am a birther extreme.
There is no way that Obama is a NBC. he knows it and so does everyone on the hill.
But if they want us to focus on the policy so be it.
Once he is out, I want to see what his library looks like.
Will it be the only one that has a restricted section on his birth?
The lies continue.
The old Indiana lie. The judge with the circular logic to then issue a simple formal ruling - AFFIRMED was the total ruling. His puke the preceded was not a ruling. To imply otherwise is sick lie. WKA is THE most conversational ruling in SCOTUS history anyway. This Hoosier judge got his marching order and followed them. Put vomit down on paper to be used in forums like this and convince the masses that do not read legal brief that some actual law was made. Well, this ain’t *hitcago.
And - its ‘natural born Citizen’ not ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Abusing and misusing the term in the Constitution shows either a lack of understanding or lack of respect or both.
‘natural Citizen’ follows the father lineage.
‘born Citizen’ is a Citizen (note the capital C is used correctly) FROM BIRTH. When combined - ‘natural born Citizen’ is someone whose father was a Citizen (Obama’s was not) and who has been a Citizen from birth (Obama has not since he was an Indonesian citizen as a child).
Hence why Schatz and Hawaii Democratic Party NEVER declared Obama an Article II eligible candidate. NEVER. Schatz committed fraud and attempted to commit fraud and Pelosi baled him out with the CEO.
But Schatz did not want to commit the crime of declaring a knowingly ineligible candidate a valid one. That fraud - he did avoid.
So quote a hick judge from Hoosierville. But go find out why Schatz would not put his John Hancock on the OCON in Hawaii. When you have that answer - come tell us. Inside guy.
The Supreme Court of the United States has had a number of opportunities to rule on the deVattel-two citizen parents theory of natural born citizenship, in Kerchner v Obama, in Hollister v Soetoro, two times, and in Taitz v Obama. The Justices of the Supreme Court have not accepted any of these appeals for a hearing before the full Court.
Gee, when I look at what the Democrats sent to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Official, I see both Brian Schatz and Nancy Pelosi’s signatures:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
In any even, Obama submitted ballot certification forms and statements in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and no state nor the federal district challenged his eligibility to be on the ballot.
In some states, like Arizona, Obama signed a state form attesting to the fact that he is a “natural born citizen of the United States” and there were no state challenges to his eligibility.
Here’s what he signed to get on the ballot in Arizona:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
Yes, it is. There is no pattern for this mess in the history of the nation.....
The last time we had this degree of political corruption in the Federal Government was during Reconstruction. Very dark times, that transplanted my ancestors to Texas, they were literally burned out of AL then.
I don’t know how you come to such a positive statement of Obama being a ‘natural born citizen’. There are piles of facts that show Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and the most telling of all is that Obama himslf has not presented any evidence that he is a ‘natural born citizen’ who meets the historical basis for such.
I don’t know how you come to such a positive statement of Obama being a ‘natural born citizen’. There are piles of facts that show Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and the most telling of all is that Obama himslf has not presented any evidence that he is a ‘natural born citizen’ who meets the historical basis for such.
U do realize I was being sarcastic, right? :-)
That was a sarcastic swipe at the Birthers.
I could laugh if it weren’t so tragic.
However in my mind I see something very much like Area 51 for his birthplace
Where did I say that no one in Congress has ever had to prove eligibility?
It’s not my “view,” it’s the language in the Constitution. If you dont wanna follow it, I wont make you.
What you linked to (which has been posted multiple times on this thread) does prove my point. The 20th Amendment shows how to act if the President is ineligible. It doesnt say that Congress gets to determine that.
Your “burden of proof” is something you fabricated by cherrypicking parts of sentences that dont actually back what you claim.
As for what Congress does, if the President is found ineligible, Congress doesnt name a replacement. The VP becomes the new Pres. Congress only picks a new Pres if both the Pres and VP are ineligible.
Everyone takes the oath to defend the Constitution. It’s required. Do you think that oath is referring to defending the piece of paper in the National Archives, or to upholding its principles and provisions?
What are you talking about? The principles and provisions in the 20th Amendment instruct on how Presidential succession will be handled. Do you think the Constitution is a document that can be altered to fit a political agenda?
Oh really? You say it shows how to act if the President (actually the President elect) is ineligible, yet somehow, incredibly fails to say "who" is to act. Why even say what to do if you don't say who is to do it? You are wrong. Let's see who is listed in bold as the ones to act if there is a lack of qualification:
"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,"
Looks like it clearly says Congress is the party responsible for establishing a replacement to me.
”Your “burden of proof” is something you fabricated by cherrypicking parts of sentences that dont actually back what you claim.”
Once again, I’ll make the case. You respond with whatever argument you wish to make about any aspect of it. Remember, your simply stating something does not make it true. Back your points up with solid evidence.
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. Also, a presidential term in office can only be initiated with a constitutionally legal President, not a Usurper.
In addition to the Constitution, here is U.S. law...
U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
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.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
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.
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.