Posted on 12/01/2008 6:04:32 AM PST by pissant
Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.
According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.
Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."
Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.
(Excerpt) Read more at thebulletin.us ...
I agree the average voter (ESPECIALLY THE AVERAGE DIMWIT democRAT MOONBAT VOTER) doesn't have a clue what they're voting for or why, much less following or abiding by the Constitution. However I don't care about the dimwit voters, but IMO, the judges & elected officials who have sworn to uphold & defend the Constitution are the ones whose feet need to be held to the fire. If the US Appeals Courts & U.S. Supreme Court, or the U.S. Congress are more concerned about political correctness or ramifications of what might happen, then these weenies need to at least be exposed for the cowardly b@$t@rds that they are.
Maybe it's time to follow the words of Thomas Jefferson....
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Or to adhere to the warnings & admonitions of the Declaration of Independence, to abolish & replace a corrupted government when such a government becomes destructive of its own laws & abuses its rights to govern lawfully....
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".
No, according to the law children born in the U.S. are, with few exceptions, natural born U.S. citizens regardless of the nationality of their parents.
But surely the Senate would not draft a resolution that runs counter to the law, would they???
Not that I'd expect, but as I pointed out even without the resolution the law was clear in McCain's case. He is a natural born U.S. citizen through his parents.
Which interpretation would that be?? the one requiring both parents to be citizens or requiring him to be born on American territory??? And since he failed the latter and was born off the American military base, then it must be his birth by two American citizens, right???
He is a natural born U.S. citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens who had resided in the U.S. for some time prior to his birth.
If the SC DQ’s Obama before the EC vote, McCain wins the Presidency since he had the next most votes. It’s as though Obama never ran.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Irrelevant.
According to the law, yes. A natural born U.S. citizen.
Why would the Supreme Court be concerned with electoral margins?
I thought the court's responsibilities had to do with the letter of the law.
Has there been any news today from the SCOTUS that I missed? I thought today was the day the first suit made it to the conference at which they see if 4 of ‘em want to take it.
Thanks for this excellent point.
Can you elaborate?
For instance, would tax code be invalid if signed by an ineligible President? I would like to avoid spreading the wealth around.
Unless you can sell it in a 20 second news clip, it’s whatever the liberal media says it is.
Perhaps it is time to learn how to do this.
Your opinion happens to follow the Constitution. The only way Biden could become pres is if Barry croaked prior to taking office or the Electoral College decides that BO is ineligible at which point they could vote for Biden. But after the votes are cast BO ineligibility means McCain is president since the House can only choose among the top three EV getters.
Based on the Constitution itself. And nowhere in that document is there any hint of the possibility of a do-over election. Nor is there any need for one now. If Obama is found to be ineligible, the Constitution lays out in detail in the 20th Amendment on how to deal with that.
Exactly!
There are no provisions within the Constitution for a new election. It requires that should the president elect be ineligible the House must choose between the top three EV getters. There are only McCain and BO so McCain gets the job with Biden as VP. There is no escape from the Constitution. It is either obey it or ignore it. Even Democrats might pause at the latter choice.
Actually that is incorrect. McCain is not a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born on U.S. territory, be it a base or an embassy or whatever (and he was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon, I believe). McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens who had resided in the United States for a number of years prior to his birth. That's according to U.S. law. As for your children, without knowing all the particulars I would venture to say they are natural born U.S. citizens for one of two reasons. Either they were born in the States, and your wife's nationality and their dual citizenship has no bearing on that. Or they were born abroad and obtained their natural born citizenship through you, as a U.S. citizen above a certain age who had resided in the U.S. for the requisite number of years. In any case, should your children be insane enough to want to run for office then there is no reason why we couldn't be voting for them for president in a few decades.
You know that bunch will try and kill you with lawyers not guns. Or they figure they can drive you to shooting yourself.
Yeah, I'll give it up. Just as soon as you point to whatever law or what article of the Constitution you used to arrive at your conclusion. Please point it out to me because I sure as hell can't find it.
Thank you.
Unfortunately Sarah will stay in Juneau. This will not involve her since Biden’s votes for VP are the majority. There is no constitutionally valid scenario in which Sarah becomes VP.
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.