Replies

I don’t mean this post as a personal attack on you, but I am curious...could you explain to me how a forged birth certificate is “crap”? I might misunderstand you, because there are some aspects of this that are crap, like clinging to the belief that somehow this will take down Obama and force him from office.

In that case, I would agree it is crap.

But that is not what this is about. This is about putting a process in place for this election and future elections to ensure that anyone running for higher office is who they say they are, and that they meet the Constitutional requirements for citizenship.

Do you agree or disagree that is a worthy goal?

Perhaps I should narrow it down further with two questions:

1.) Do you think the Birth Certificate is forged? (If you don’t, it would be obvious that you view that subject as “crap”, I expect)

2.) If you DO think it is forged (or have no opinion on the authenticity) then do you think it is important, yes or no?

If your answer to question #2 is “No”, then why don’t you think it important?

The insidious, damaging and corrosive aspect of this is the action of a person in the most important office in this country who would submit a fraudulent, forged document without fear of repercussion, the President of The United States.

If you or I lied under oath in a taped deposition, would we be eligible for prosecution? Do you agree or disagree that the damage done by the former President of the United States, lying under oath, has any bearing on the rule of law?

And if the ostensible head of of the Justice Department was known to submit fraudulent documents such as a birth certificate that had been cobbled together, does that weaken the case for anyone else trying to prosecute someone for identity theft with forged documents?

I take issue with your calling this subject “this crap”. One of the reasons the Left is running roughshod over many aspects of life is because they have bent and broken the rules and the law in so many ways large and small without being challenged, that their version of what is right and lawful in so many aspects is what is being accepted.

"This is about putting a process in place for this election and future elections to ensure that anyone running for higher office is who they say they are, and that they meet the Constitutional requirements for citizenship."

"One possible solution would be a constitutional amendment"

Read your Constitution. The Twentieth Amendment, section 3. It states:

""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."

A few notes.

1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.

"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."

2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify."

3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.

4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.

Thus it is that we already have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result.