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.
Butter, Have you read the legal posting by Paul Guthrie in which he defines “natural born citizen”? This goes on for a bit, but is worth reading. The birth certificate thing is not going anywhere. Maybe approach this from a different angle?
After four years of this, I finally understand what “color blind” really means. Really concerned if he is exposed he’ll pull the “real dad” trick out of his hat which would of course make him a citizen if “dad” is FM Davis.
DEFINITIONS SECTION
PROOF OF THE DEFINITION OF natural born Citizen
PART I Natural Law Theory of the Father
(fact)44) “We the People” created the Constitution. (see Constitution)
45) The Constitution creates the three branches of government. (see Constitution)
46) “We the People” are the male and female citizens of the United States. (natural fact)
47) The male and female citizens represent the Natural Law jurisdiction of government. (natural fact)
48) By deduction due to the defined facts of law in 47, and by a and d
in PART III of the definitions section below, the three branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, represent the Positive Law jurisdiction of government. (fact by definition in a, d,below and 47, above)49) Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United Sates Constitution bans Titles of Nobility, Federal.50) Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution bans Titles of Nobility, State.20
51) 49 and 50 operate on 47 to prevent:a) Congress, Executive and Judicial branches from applying the positive law authority of 48 to declare the offspring of U.S. State citizen male fathers and foreign female mothers to be either a naturalized U.S. citizen of a foreign country, or from being natural born Citizens (U.S. natives) that are also natives of a foreign country or foreign state. This prevents a male U.S. citizen or U.S. President from acting like a King who can create rulers of foreign political societies via his offspring to foreign females. This binds the male citizen and his offspring to the father’s U.S. citizenship, making the male U.S. citizen’s choice in female with which to produce offspring irrelevant for Article II natural born Citizen status. This ensures that native U.S. citizen males from the States can only create membership for their offspring to be in U.S. society that is inherited as a natural right claim of sovereign political authority from their U.S. State citizen father. (logical fact) b) Congress, Executive and Judicial branches from applying the positive law authority of 48 to declare the offspring of a U.S. State citizen female mother and foreign male father to be natural born
21 Citizens that can be President. This prevents the female citizen from acting like a Queen.
This binds the female citizen and her offspring to US citizenship via the male U.S. citizen father and his State citizenship in order for her offspring to be considered
natural born
U.S. citizens that can be President. Also, it protects the female mother’s choice in what country she wants to create natural born citizens by protecting her choice and the political rights of the native males of her society from the consequences of rape by a foreign male.(logical fact)52) Mr. Obama is the offspring of a U.S. citizen mother and foreign father, making him a naturalized-at-birth U.S. citizen (Positive Law only,adopted citizen), the opposite of a natural born U.S. Citizen. (Natural Law only, born to a U.S. citizen father from a State, inherited right of citizenship ) (natural fact)53) Due to 49, 50, 51, 52 above, Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is barred by the Constitution from serving as President and has no natural right or legal right claim to that Office. (logical deduction natural fact)22
All of this is nice, but the “failed to qualify” argument from the requirements of the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three is an easier standard to prove. What was our Congress shown as proof of eligibility? None of them can answer this question. If any of them cite the already proven fraudulent documents, they are subject to charges of treason. They, Congress, can’t answer the question. If they can’t answer the question, the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three tells us that there has been a “failure to qualify”. There is no legal President at this time. Get Congress to admit it.
"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."
I would suggest that "if" Sheriff Joe has taken an oath to support the Constitution that yes, he has standing. If he has taken such an oath as part of his official duties, he cannot be denied the opportunity to ensure that his oath is being carried out in full. He has a legal right to know whether any portion of the document he swore to uphold is being trampled or not enforced.
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire – July, 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,”
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana Appellate Court – November, 2009) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court - January, 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al
Tisdale v. Obama (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit – June, 2012) ruling: “We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012).”
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10297957363131120065&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia - February, 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona - March, 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey - April, 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Purpura v. Obama (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. - May, 2012) ruling: “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20NJCO%2020120531303.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida - June, 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.” [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Fair v. Obama (Maryland - August, 2012) ruling: “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.” [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wKKiOvnt0lMp6-qpjJyQxVuqE7PZwcPAihzA2dKtP-M/edit?pli=1
Voeltz v. Obama II (Florida - September, 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont -November, 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9w3awDuyAUd2FGeDk3MVVsWW8/edit
“The state agency that issued the document does NOT say that this is the document they issued.”
Why does their website link to the White House pdf?
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
The same reason they put Obama’s name and a couple others with non-valid BC’s in their 1960-64 birth index.
They are children of the Father of Lies. They serve their master, as does Obama.
Anyone who read the WKA decision knew the outcome in advance. There is no legal debate on the subject. It has been settled law since 1898. But birthers can’t handle paragraphs, let alone whole pages, and certainly not multiple pages of reasoning. Most have problems with anything longer than a sentence fragment.
The burden of proof falls on Obama now, since his BC is non-valid.
No court previously convened has used the proper presumptions. They presumed that the 1960-64 birth index and HDOH actions were “regular” (in compliance with the law). I have proven they are not, and Alvin Onaka himself has verified not only that the birth index is false, but that Obama’s birth record is one of the non-valid records that got into the 1960-64 birth index through HDOH manipulation/deceit/lawlessness.
This changes everything. The “ruling on the field” is that the claims on the HI BC are NOT accurate, and it is up to Obama to present the BC as evidence so he can try to overturn that legally-binding “ruling on the field”.
In order to bring suit a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate DIRECT and particularized injury from the action of the plaintiff. Think of a two car auto accident, a bystander who saw the accident but was not injured in it does not have standing to bring suit.
There are four people in the United States who have standing to sue Barack Obama for injuring them directly by denying them the presidency. Those people are John Mc Cain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only people to receive actual Electoral votes and have a legitimate chance to be president if Obama is ineligible. They were DIRECTLY harmed. None of those four chose to file suit.
Average citizens had standing to file ballot challenge lawsuits against Obama to try to keep him off their state’s ballot. There were 50 such lawsuits in 2012 and they were heard in 22 states. No ballot challenge has yet prevailed however. Many of the ballot challenge lawsuits were filed by average Americans who don’t believe that Obama is eligible; people like Sharon Meroni in Illinois or Tracy Fair in Maryland or Al Hendershot in Alabama, et cetera.
Sheriff Joe could be a co-plaintiff, as could every other American citizen.
However there are no issues of standing if a law enforcement officer like Sheriff Arpaio pursued CRIMINAL charges against Obama for forgery, fraud, election fraud, document tampering, or other criminal activity.
Standing is not an issue in the criminal courts.
No law enforcement officer has presented a criminal complaint to a prosecuting attorney such as a district attorney, a US Attorney or a state attorney general.
I think you are misusing this metaphor. The ruling on the field is that Obama is eligible--I'm sure you've noticed that he's served four years already, he was on the ballot in 50 states a couple of months ago, and the Electoral College rubber-stamped his election last week. You're the one throwing the red flag, but the referees need "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call. I'm sorry, but you just don't have that.
The “call on the field” analogy is to show who has the burden of proof. Legally speaking, Obama has the burden of proof now that Onaka has revealed that Obama’s HI BC is non-valid.
The analogy breaks down for other purposes because a football game isn’t comparable to the US Constitution and our legal system. There’s not a requirement in football that a cheater CAN’T be a winner, but the Constitution says that NO PERSON SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT except a natural born citizen who is old enough and resided in the country long enough. It further says that after the system for making the calls is done, a person can STILL fail to qualify and somebody else SHALL “act as President until a President shall have qualified”. The Constitution doesn’t define who can appeal and the courts have claimed that Congress has to decide the case but Hawaii law says it has to be somebody judicial or administrative. IOW, the courts are making a situation where the Constitution CANNOT be enforceable, which is contrary to all the principles of law that have been used for interpreting the Constitution.
Maybe this is more like a case where a medalist is stripped of their medals. Where everybody thought they had won, they got all the perks for having won, etc - and then it was found out that they had never been eligible to even be in the race because they violated the rules. Everybody reasonably acted as if the person had won because by all appearances he/she did. But later evidence proved that they were never eligible to even be in the race - they KNEW they were never eligible, and had perpetrated a big hoax to deceive everybody into thinking they were eligible.
In such a case a person can be stripped of their medals, and in this particular case the Constitution REQUIRES that they be stripped of their medals - not only for violating the rules set out in the Constitution, but actually for the capital crime of treason.
The evidence is clear now, that Obama was never eligible to be in the race. The HI state registrar has revealed that Obama doesn’t have the necessary documentation to qualify - has no legally-determined birth facts - and that he and his goons have perpetrated a big hoax through 2 public forgeries (one of them from the White House and on the White House website) and by forcing the HDOH to break the law and give Obama a new, fabricated BC that he didn’t qualify for. He has sent a man to prison and taken away his retirement and savings simply for refusing to obey orders until he was given reason to believe Obama was Constitutionally able to give those orders - with Obama all the while knowing he was NOT Constitutionally able to give the orders and was crapping on the very Constitution he swore to defend and uphold.
Right now the burden of proof has been revealed to legally fall on Obama, not on those who challenge his birth claims. Every court, every state SOS, and Congress have all presumed that the burden of proof fell on the challengers but now it has been revealed that the burden of proof falls on Obama and that he CANNOT qualify unless he presents the non-valid record as evidence and tries like crazy to get the judge to overturn the legal presumption of non-validity.
A law enforcement officer told me he would refer the case resulting from my complaint to the state attorney general, and his chief told him that he couldn’t. No reason given as to why.
Where in the Constitution does it say that a person can “act as President” as long as 4 specific laypersons (non-judicial) say it’s OK with them? How do those 4 people alone have the job of protecting the entire country from someone who is not eligible to the office of the Presidency? There is no reward for being President-elect so how would any of those 4 people experience real harm before the President-elect actually became the President? If “standing” is required, there would never be a moment in time when a person had standing to PREVENT an ineligible President-elect from taking office.
In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of hearing a case even after it was too late to do any “good” (cough) for the plaintiff. The appeals took too long, so that by the time the Supreme Court heard the case, it was no longer a case. There was nobody with standing, because “Roe” had already given birth to her baby and there was nothing justiciable. The Supreme Court heard the non-case anyway because it was a CONTROVERSY which impacted many women, none of whom would ever be able to reach the Supreme Court with a case still existing. The precedent is set, that a “controversy” does not require there to be a justiciable case, if it is impossible for a justiciable case to still exist at the time the Supreme Court would have to decide the case.
Furthermore, class action lawsuits take place all the time.
And cases have been filed where standing was automatically granted (such as in the ballot challenges) but the judges threw out the challenges without ever applying the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule by fiat. It’s contagious; spread by the barrel of a gun I suspect.
An opposing candidate makes the strongest case for granting standing in an election eligibility lawsuit. The first thing a judge is going to think is “where’s the guy or gal that lost?”
What crime did you allege that Barack Obama committed in your state that is a violation of your state’s laws? It is always best to file a criminal complaint in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. There should be criminal complaints filed in every state of the union plus the District of Columbia. That might shake loose a grand jury investigation (which was the way Whitewater started under Clinton) or even a congressional investigation in the House. My hope was always that Sheriff Arpaio would turn over the Cold Case Posse evidence to the Maricopa County Attorney but that has not happened in time to stop Obama’s coronation.
Hundreds, thousands, even millions of co-plaintiffs can join any civil suit in a class action but the strongest case will always be with a lead plaintiff who can show direct and particularized harm. Would you grant standing to a pharmaceutical damage suit that had no plaintiff who had suffered direct injury from the side effects of the drug?
In one of the earliest eligibility lawsuits, US District Court Judge Carter contemplated granting standing to Allan Keyes, candidate of the American Independent Party but Judge Carter ultimately didn’t because Keyes was only on the ballot in four or five states and had no chance to be harmed by being denied a serious opportunity to be elected.
The first 2008 presidential eligibility lawsuit to be dismissed for lack of standing was Hollister v McCain and the Republican National Committee. That suit was filed at the time of the 2008 New Hampshire Primary. It challenged McCain’s eligibility due to his birth outside the US. McCain’s and the RNC’s attorneys got the lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing by Fred Hollister. If Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul or one of the other Republican primary candidates had been a plaintiff along with Mr, Hollister, the lawsuit might have had a much better chance of being heard in full court.
If 40 people had received electoral votes, then that number would have the strongest case to be granted standing. However after the first twenty or so Obama and Mc Cain eligibility lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing, and both liberal and conservative judges were granting those dismissals, it would have been a good idea to try to enlist one of the major party candidates as a lead plaintiff to make the strongest possible case for being granted standing. You are correct that any judge can grant standing if they are so inclined. The reality is that only a few have, except for in the state ballot challenges where most states’ laws allow any registered voter to file a challenge. There were 50 of those lawsuits in 2012 and none were dismissed on standing grounds.
The Constitution is very precise: (12th Amendment), whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.” There is a constitutional check on the electors, the votes of the electors can be challenged in Congress by any one Representative and any one Senator, but in Obama’s case, there were no challenges from any member of Congress in 2008 or in 2012.
All the thugs have to do is threaten the one other person who gets electoral votes, and America is dead.
Wow.
You will never convince me that the Founders intended this nation’s Constitution to be that fragile.
You seem to have missed what I said about Roe v Wade. Roe didn’t have standing. The decision was made based on all the women would MIGHT be harmed if a decision was not made. Roe wasn’t the person at issue in SCOTUS’ decision; she had already had her baby. She was a representative for all the potential people who could be “harmed”.
All the stuff about standing is just an excuse. Even in the cases where standing was guaranteed, the judges dismissed the case - for instance, Klayman’s case down in FL.
My country is dead. I’m a patriot without a country.
The Indiana court recognized WKA was not found to be a “natural born Citizen.” They admitted it.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.they clearly concluded that WKA was "found to be" a natural born citizen.
Did George W. Bush show Congress a long-form birth certificate? Did Bill Clinton? Did Ronald Reagan?
This is where your argument falls apart. The Constitution says a President must "qualify," but doesn't say how he does that. The courts have therefore ruled that a president-elect has "qualified" if Congress accepts the electoral votes.
“The different pixel sizes?”
Are you talking about the resolution of the background layer versus the text layers?
“The statistical improbability of exact same pixels appearing more than once?”
Isn’t that what compression software does to help reduce file size?
“The incorrect date stamps?”
What do you mean by this?
“The mix of font sizes?”
Is this what Paul Irey was talking about?
“The centering of text within a supposed typed document?”
What do you mean by this?
“The failure text alignments to be correct?”
Are you talking about the left hand justification of the different lines of text?
“Straight textr lines on a curved piece of paper?”
Wasn’t this shown to be not true?
“The security page image data appearing UNDER text layers when they are moved?”
Which of the text layers? I see white mirror images of the moved text.
“The appearace of layers of different pixel sizes?”
Are you talking about the resolution of the background layer versus the text layers?
“The appearance of layers AT ALL in a single scanned image?”
Are you saying layers are impossible?
"We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial."
Really. Care to cite the case?
BTW, There is no such thing as a "President Elect" until AFTER Congress accepts and ratifies the electoral college results. This means that since there is no President Elect before the acceptance of the electoral college votes that it is impossible for him/her to "qualify" for anything. In addition, since the ratification by Congress is REQUIRED before you can even have a President Elect, the passage requiring a President Elect to qualify has nothing to do with the ratification process.
Obama's own legal team admits that the process is exactly as I've described it. They used the Twentieth Amendment, section three as their defense against anyone other than Congress having the "standing" to question the eligibility of a President Elect.
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.