Posted on 03/16/2011 5:38:50 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
If the Congress found out the day before counting the electoral votes that the supposed winner was only 33 years old, do you believe they should seat him? Or do they have a duty to disqualify?
Schatz committted outright fraud submitting an invalid OCON to the CEO.
Worse he left his fellow Democrats hanging by letting them submit and sign invalid candidate declaration docs in the states where it is required like Hawaii.
If I were democrat who sign off on Obama’s eligibility in other states I would be on the phone to Schatz asking what he knows. Because knows something. Had he not submitted incomplete documents, Madame speakers document would not have been needed.
So Schatz let his fellow Democrats commit fraud. Nice guy.
I never said Congress was not involved in Presidential succession. They are, if both Pres and VP are ineligible. As for your question, it does say how to act without saying who is responsible for verifying.
The act of Congress picking a replacement or the VP becoming the new Pres in the clause is something that is to happen after the PResident fails to qualify.
If he was proven to be ineligible, then the VP would be seated as President, as long as he was eligible too.
Since Congress has to know whether or not they are supposed to implement section three of the twentieth amendment, they MUST be shown proof of being eligible by the President elect. The Constitution is clear. No Person who is ineligible to serve as President can legally serve as President, no matter how complacent Congress is in enforcing section three. Their disregarding the law does not equate in any shape , form, or fashion making someone who is not legal, legal.
Unless they receive verification, they don't know whether or not to act. The burden of supplying them with verification is on the President elect. Qualification is something he/she is attempting to succeed or "fail" at. This is not complicated. How this is done is up to Congress and anything used to determine the answer to the eligibility question should be on file and open for inspection by any member of Congress. If there is nothing there, then we have no legal President, but a usurper.
It doesnt say that at all.
Make your argument. So far, it isn't much. Explain to us your interpretation of section three. I can't wait.
Well, Congress would have to make that judgment, wouldn't they.
yes.
He pretty much ceded the argument.
Great posts, Uncle Sham.
No
Based on what have I ceded the argument? Nothing in the Constitution makes Congress the body that determines eligibility.
So, no one is responsible, according to you.
That’s exactly the thinking that has gotten us to where we are.
We have an entire political class who would rather crawl on their knees for twenty miles than take responsibility for anything.
The Obama legal team has made section three the central part of their defense argument as justification 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.
Once again, you are wrong. In addition, you've yet to back your assertions with anything of substance.
You seem to like making that claim, but Ive never said anything close to that. For verification, it should be up to the states. The 20th Amendment is about what should be done after.
I am going to make this as simple as I can. Simply ask your Congressman whether or not he knows if Obama is legally eligibile to serve as President. If he answers yes, demand from him how he has determined this. Any other answer means NO. If “No” is your net result, we have a usurper. Period. Also, if “No” is the result, ask your Congressman about his oath of office and how it pertains to the provisions of section three of the Twentieth amendment.
Schatz committted outright fraud submitting an invalid OCON to the CEO.
Worse he left his fellow Democrats hanging by letting them submit and sign invalid candidate declaration docs in the states where it is required like Hawaii.
If I were democrat who sign off on Obama’s eligibility in other states I would be on the phone to Schatz asking what he knows. Because knows something. Had he not submitted incomplete documents, Madame speakers document would not have been needed.
So Schatz let his fellow Democrats commit fraud. Nice guy.
However since the state of Hawaii pursued no legal action against Schatz and the Democratic Party of Hawaii and no election fraud charge was filed in any other state, the issue is moot.
I do not think that the statue of limitations has run out. It is not moot.
There are lawyers preparing suits and talking to prosecutors about charges against the Democrats who committed the fraud. They better lawyer up soon.
I do not think that the statue of limitations has run out. It is not moot.
There are lawyers preparing suits and talking to prosecutors about charges against the Democrats who committed the fraud. They better lawyer up soon.
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.