Posted on 01/14/2013 7:58:24 PM PST by Uncle Sham
The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are. It's right there in the Constitution under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three:
"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." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure 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 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. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.
Tomorrow, January 15th, they get another shot at upholding their oaths of office or committing treason by ignoring the Twentieth Amendment, Section three. Perhaps someone will finally have the courage to do what is right.
/sarcasm
I know right.
Allen v Obama: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”
It does no good to look at the “answer” unless you also look at the “question”. To get the 2nd page of Bennett’s request, TPM Muckraker had to have also received the 1st page - the actual application form which Bennett twice mentions in page 2 of his request. Why do you suppose TPM Muckraker CENSORED that actual application?
The fact of the matter is that the CRITICAL question - whether it can be verified that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama - got a resounding “no” for an answer.
The silence in that verification is deafening - but only if you know that was the question that Bennett clearly asked and that Onaka was required to verify (say that he specifically verifies) every submitted “fact” that he legally CAN verify. If he can verify Honolulu he also legally has to verify Oahu. He didn’t, so it is clear that he is not verifying Honolulu as the place the birth really happened, but only as the CLAIM on the non-valid BC (what the BC “indicates”, which has no legal meaning whatsoever).
He verified that the claims that are on the White House BC are also on the HDOH record. Why, then, did he not verify ANY of those claims as being the way the event actually happened? Why no mention of male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama, and only mention of the BC “indicating” Honolulu (which is as true for a non-valid BC as for a valid one)?
When asked why no DOB was verified, Bennett responded that it was a clerical error; somebody “just forgot”. He’s accusing Onaka of an unlawful response, after Bennett wrangled for months with the HI AG’s office over every jot and tiddle of the legalities. That’s a serious matter; what evidence supports that? Legally, the presumption has to be of REGULARITY - that the response was done in compliance with the law, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
And if Bennett or anybody else comes up with evidence that the verification was not lawful, then it is worthless and we’re back to square one - that even after proper and lawful procedures were done to verify Obama’s birth facts, we still have nothing. That’s the BEST-CASE scenario for Obama - a net score of zero after the legal authorities in Hawaii had responded to a lawful request for verification.
Don’t expect TPM to have the integrity to address this issue with serious legal reasoning; their job all along has been to provide a fig leaf, and because Americans are stupid, the truth has no big megaphone, and the legal system has been taken hostage, the lies have carried the day. For now.
When the Day of Justice arrives we will see who has been in the truth and who are children of the Father of Lies. He steals, kills, and destroys, and he and all his children will be exposed for who they are and what they have done. Count on it.
All of those based on ZERO evidence. Now the HI state registrar has revealed that there IS NO legally valid HI BC for Obama. This means that the burden of proof has shifted to Obama. All those court cases operated under the presumption that the birth claims on Obama’s posted forgeries were true and that the HDOH’s 1960-64 birth index was a list of VALID BC’s. Now both those legal presumptions are out the window, since the 1960-64 birth index has been proven to contain non-valid BC’s, and Onaka has verified that Obama’s HI BC is non-valid.
Those court cases are all rendered moot by Onaka’s disclosure, since they put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs, when LAWFULLY the burden of proof now has to fall on the defendant. The defendant who has posted 2 forgeries off the record (as now confirmed by Onaka, as well as the forensic evidence from Arpaio and Zullo) and nothing on the record in those cases.
Why 3 breaches of Obama’s passport record - the last right after the date that the camera documented for the photos of the forged short-form?
Why a forged “cable” from the head of the Passport Office (Alex Galovich), claiming that millions of passport applications were destroyed without ANY of the required procedures/authorization and documentation for such a destruction?
I don’t buy anything you’re selling and neither do most people.
I can’t prove your conspiracy theory wrong because CONSPIRACY THEORIES CAN NEVER BE WRONG.
Seriously, Onaka sent out a record verifying Obama’s birth in Hawaii and you keep insisting that it was actually a confirmation that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii. Up is down, right is wrong, facts are lies — there is no arguing with you.
The state agency that issued the document does NOT say that this is the document they issued.
Joe Arpaio’s deputies went there to ask just that- and they dance around and around no matter how hard they tried they would not say that the certificate Obama gave to the public was the one they gave him, or unmodified from whatever they gave him.
They asked over and over “If a certificate is modified is it valid” and the only answer they would give was “but you still have a valid certtificate” That non-sequitor is not ‘proof’ but a simple “yes that is the one we gave him” was never given, and great contortions gone through to NOT say that.
AND
Computer image experts have demonstrated that it could not be a copy of anything- it was GENERATED from several different documents. Since I am a computere software enigneer and have written imaging software I know they are 100% correct in pointing out that it is manufactured. I saw it was a fake in a half hour of it being released.
The state agency that issued the document does NOT say that this is the document they issued.
It verifies that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. That's all that's necessary to close the case on him being NBC.
Computer image experts have demonstrated that it could not be a copy of anything- it was GENERATED from several different documents.
No, idiots who don't understand scan-to-PDF software misinterpreted how it works. I've read their "analysis" and they weren't "computer experts." Basically none of the "expert image analysis" that you read on the web is worth a pile of rat dookey.
Daily Kos had a post proving -- PROVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- that the Anthony Wiener photo was a forgery. Did I mention PROVING!!!!!! It has been a while since I've read it, but it had all kinds of high-tech sounding mumbo-jumbo that the Kos Kids ate up like candy. Hilarious.
In any case, even if for some bizarre reason the release document image was fake, the state of Hawaii has verified that Obama was born in Honolulu. If Obama was, indeed, trying to cover something up, it wasn't his birthplace.
As far as I can tell, this posting is a hoax. It links to an article on a site that doesn’t exist. There is a Daily Kos poster named openDNA, but that person never posted a diary confessing to forging anything.
There was a whole page of information that Bennett requested to be verified, and Hawaii statute says that the HDOH “shall” (mandatory) provide a verification of any submitted information, provided that a verification of that information is certification that it’s the way the birth actually happened (IOW, they have a record that is legally presumed to be accurate which claims it).
Onaka would not verify ANYTHING from that form. HRS 338-14.3 requires him to verify everything he legally can. He swore on the letter of verification that his response was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3. So you tell me: why did he not verify those things as required by the statute he swore he obeyed?
Tell me why he didn’t.
OK now I know where you stand...
Look, I have WRITTEN computer imaging software. I could be called into a courtroom as an expert witness, I am a qualified expert in that field. I have been to Fort Huachuca to have the government verify NITF imaging software I wrote as correct. Get it? I don't need anyone else's "pile of rat dookey", although the analysis I have seen is spot-on accurate.
I can easily see that the document is a fake generated from several other documents.
I know what I am talking about- and the document is FAKE
You just dont want to accept that anaylisis.
It is you who does not understand 'scan-to-PDF' software.
Mr, Know It All, what are your computer-image analysis qualifications? Did you even read Mr. K’s?
Onaka settled the forgery question for us. He was asked to verify that the White HOuse image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and he would not.
He was also asked to verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information contained in the HDOH record, and he would not verify that either.
He’s required to verify everything he can, so if he really VERIFIED that Obama was born in Honolulu, then his only lawful reason to not also verify that he was born on Oahu is if there is a Honolulu that is not on Oahu, and Obama was born there. Is that what you’re claiming?
Unless there is a Honolulu on a Hawaii island other than Oahu, Onaka either violated HRS 338-14.3 and this verification is worthless, or else he verified exactly what he said in the language in his verification: He verified the existence of a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, II which “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
You are pinning everything on the word “indicating” meaning “proving”, and Onaka unlawfully forgetting to verify anything else (like island of birth, date of birth, gender, and parents’ names) - after the HI AG’s office dithered around for months over the technical legalities of this request.
So which is it? Did Onaka violate HRS 338-14.3 and the verification is thus legally worthless because it’s inaccurate? If so, please support your answer with evidence, because the legal presumption at this point has to be that the verification was n compliance with HRS 338-14.3, unless there is good evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity.
Or did Onaka mean exactly what he said - that he verified the existence of a birth record “indicating” a Honolulu birth, and he obeyed HRS 338-14.3 which requires him to verify everything he can?
Take your pick.
In Minor v Happersett the Supreme Court said that there was legal doubt as to whether persons born on US soil but not to 2 US citizen parents are “natural born”. And that’s after the 14th Amendment was adopted, so that is an acknowledgment by the Supreme Court of the United States that there was NOT consensus in the legal community regarding whether the 14th Amendment pertains to “natural born” citizenship.
In Minor v Happersett the Supreme Court said that there was legal doubt as to whether persons born on US soil but not to 2 US citizen parents are “natural born”.
1. No, it did not say that.
2. The SCOTUS was not being asked to rule on NBC status. The only rulings we have to work with say that Obama was NBC.
I know what I am talking about- and the document is FAKE
I have WRITTEN computer imaging software, too, and you are wrong. The analyses are bunk.
I have been to Fort Huachuca to have the government verify NITF imaging software I wrote as correct.
Now I'm worried about national security.
Would duly elected Sheriff Joe have standing? Just askin’.
From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&invol=162 (the text of Minor v Happersett):
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
“This class” (as to which there have been doubts) is “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
What does that mean, if not people born within the jurisdiction, regardless of their parents’ citizenship?
Either you have reading comprehension in the lowest 10th percentile, or you are a troll. Which is it?
The Lord spoke to Balaam using the mouth of an ass.
But you’ve bested the Lord: you’re speaking through the other end of an ass.
Anybody who is not one of your troll buddies can see it plain as day.
yeah OK...
now I know you’re just a dumba$$ troll
Either you have reading comprehension in the lowest 10th percentile, or you are a troll. Which is it?
No, I'm in some percentile -- which is apparently above yours -- which understands how our legal system works. This case does not rule on the exact meaning of NBC and it says so quite plainly in the text you quoted.
It like you're a defense attorney holding up a picture of your client committing a murder and saying, "This picture proves my client didn't do it because he would never hold a knife like that."
The highest court to rule on this, to date, is the Indiana Court of Appeals and their ruling would make Obama a NBC. This post-dates Minor v Happersett by a more than a century and is the prevailing precedent until the SCOTUS overrules it. And they haven't.
As I said, you can't be proven wrong because conspiracy theories can never be proven wrong. For a conspiracy theorist, lack of evidence is proof and counter-evidence is just proof of the conspiracy. The only reason I'm responding to you at all is for the benefit of anyone else who is following this and actually wants to know the facts. So please go ahead and put me on your enemies list. For the record, I don't want to be on your enemies list because I believe you are a committed patriot who wants to move our country back in the right direction, but I'm not going to stop disagreeing with you.
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.