Posted on 09/10/2009 4:54:47 AM PDT by kellynla
I expect nothing from this Chicago crew except deceit, intrigue, and lies. I believe they’ll go to any necessary length.
Did you hear the Acorn brothel tapes yesterday?
The pResident just renewed the EMERGENCY POWERS ACT that was initiated by President Bush right after the 9/11 disaster.
+++++++++++++++++
Really? I’d not heard that. Great...The onslaught continues. What on earth was his reason, or did he just do it on Saturday night when Van Jones resigned or something like that?
We’re in a real battle with these socialists and communists - are we not?
Any Birth Certificate anyone has is a copy of the original There is always the original. Loss or theft or burning up doesn’t take care of that!
You are assuming that the original cannot be gotten to.
“... 4 months to lean of the judge.”
I would suspect that “Opposition Research” against Judge Carter by Rahm Emmanuel and his Chicago Thugs commenced a few weeks ago.
I think we’re saying the same thing maybe... that the State has the original and issues copies.
There’s so much going on (on FR, the “real” world, and my kitchen...) that I’m kind of scattered lately.
Hope you and yours are all well!
If there are original copies of US birth certificates, then the state would have them.
It is possible they don’t because:
1. Those with power to do so have taken them.
2. Obama never had one in the first place.
Here is the article and thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2336831/posts
+++++++++++++
Thank you..[Emergency Powers called up again.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7xjcuCuCtI
Bubba did what he was told to do by She Who Must Be Obeyed, and that hag always had some perfidy in mind - always.
I'm not criticizing Carter's military bona fides. But they don't automatically represent anyone's later life - they can only indicate the direction a person's life might take.
So, I'm glad to hear Carter served honorably, and I pray he continues to do so. But I never, ever trust a Clinton.
Ever.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states: “...if 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.”
From this, if Biden is disqualified as well, the normal succession train doesn't apply, so Pelosi would not be president. Instead, Congress would have to pass a law determining who would be only "acting" president until the "qualified" winner of the presidental election process was determined.
Also, since there are no special instructions for how "a President shall have qualified," the presumption is that the normal procedure is still intact - i.e. an election. So if Obama is disqualified, that would nominally leave McCain as the qualified winner of the election.
However, in such a case there would certainly be a suit by Hillary that she had to run against an unqualified candidate who illegally sucked up votes that would have gone to her, and which would have enabled her to beat McCain. So there's a good chance that the whole election would be disqualified as tainted by fraud, and thus be required to be run again.
In the mean time, since the "acting" president (either Biden or someone specified by new Congressional law) would be prevented from being the "qualified" president, he would not have full presidential status, since the Constitution explicitly states that he exists only in order to be replaced.
So there is an argument that the only thing such an "acting president" could do is preside of the determination of the next "qualified" president, and not implement or change anything on his or her own - including signing bills. That, in fact, bill-signing could only be done by a "qualifed" president.
This might be seen as especially relevent since Obama has had such an enormous influence over the creation and implementation of these various monster bills. So their very existence could be interpreted as tainted and therefore disqualified by his fraud. Which would mean they not only would not be signable by the "acting" president, they might also have to be struck down as illegitimate creations altogether.
Well said. The enabling is huge and must be specified.
Bookmark
...when the Constitution was first written there was an inclusion (1790) allowing children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents to be considered natural born citizens, but it was repealed by 1795.
Natural born citizenship established by natural law is not found in any legal statutes concerning citizenship. It is the only type of citizenship that cannot be conferred by law, only by birth. This concept was very familiar to our founders.
Great research! This is especially significant because Congress voted an affirmation of McCain's natural born status during the campaign. I believe, however, that the affirmation is non-binding. If it was actually meant to create a decree or law, then it would be subject to SCOTUS review versus the information you have provided.
Just think of it, though - Obama declared illegitimate, and then McCain declared the legitimate winner by an act of Congress that reversed 200 years of Constitutional law for this one election, otherwise he would have been illegitimate too.
Which would also mean, however, that if McCain was declared illegitimate as well, the whole election would have to be redone, because BOTH candidates weren't qualified to be president!
Section 3 of the 20th does not apply, since Congress certified the elections of Obama and Biden. That is the “qualifying” that was to be done under that clause.
An ineligible President cannot be made eligible, though, so resort must be made, to Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, regarding Constitutional disability of a President, and that is in turn further spelled out by the 25th Amendment, dealing with potential ambiguities of succession in Article II, Section 1.
Therefore, it’s clearly Biden. There has been no effort to incriminate him as having been somehow complicit in any attempted fraud on the part of Obama, nor has there been any such effort regarding any attempted fraud on the part of the DNC.
There can’t be such an effort regarding the former, until there has been sufficient, legal proof of fraud having occurred. Regarding the latter, the DNC, there is sufficient evidence to cause legal and political problems for Pelosi, should Obama ever be found ineligible for office. The party certifications have peculiar variances that more than just imply prior knowledge of a problem with their candidate, as far as eligiblity.
So, one thing at a time. It’s not going to come down all in one fell swoop, if it comes down at all.
Biden, it is, according to the Constitution. If, for some reason, Biden himself is found to have a Constitutional disability under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, succession as dictated by the 25th leads then to Pelosi. But, that’s a separate matter not pursued to date, because it can’t be, yet.
If that point is reached, Pelosi will have big problems, and assuming Robert Byrd is still holding office and not disabled himself, it would be him.
That’s a whole string of what-ifs, though. The Constitution says Biden, and anything else would come after, according to separate actions and procedures.
Interestingly the law also defines naturalization, (how it can define a Constitutional term, I haven't a clue) as making an alien into a citizen *after* birth. How they can have a section of the same part of the US code that defines citizenship *at* birth with that definition, I'm also not quite sure. Of course all they would really need to do would be to remove the offending definition, or at least change "at birth" to "upon birth" or some such. It's a small detail, but I wish they would be consistent.
They are consistent. In the pre-14th Amendment Constitution, there was a difference between natural-born and naturalized citizens. But 14th Amendment citizenship is US Territorial administrative jurisdiction, not "of the several States." And under THAT jurisdiction, citizenship is all the same, "at birth" or "after birth." Fundamentally it is a citizenship of government extended privileges versus supra-governmental rights - i.e. citizenship created by positive law, rather than a self-existing expression of inherent rights. Two completely different jurisidictions - normally overlaid on one another and not specified during by government legal actions - but distinct, nevertheless.
It was not included in the Constitution as first written. You are referring to The Naturalization Act Of 1790, which was one of the very early Acts of our first Congress.
That Act was repealed and replaced, nearly verbatim, with The Naturalization Act Of 1795, with the words "natural born citizen" removed, and replaced with merely "citizen."
Logic dictates that Congress realized their error in overreaching the power enumerated to the Legislative branch under the Constitution, specifically limited to naturalization only, and they therefore rectified their error.
I have been attempting to research the matter to prove that this logical deduction is, in fact, the basis for the change.
One excellent online resource I've found for such research is The Founders' Constitution on The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795
There is a search function at the bottom of the page, allowing you to search nearly any Constitutional issue or figure from the Founding era. It is, as I mentioned, extremely useful.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Whether Pelosi or the DNC or other enablers were a part of it, at the very least Obama would be guilty of defrauding the certification process, so fraud would be the operative concept here.
In turn, fraud is said to "vitiate all contracts," the operative concept being nullification. By application then, through fraud the certification process was nullified - which does not merely negate it's findings, but rather expunge it's very existence.
So, an expunged certification is no certification, and no certification means no president was "qualified." Thus, Section 3 of the 20th applies.
I’ve seen the distinction made between Federal citizenship and Constitutional citizenship before, but am uncertain as to how this distinction can be brought to bear, legally, upon the matter of Obama’s eligibility for the office of President, or the lack of it.
The Constitutional language regarding Presidential eligibility deals specifically with citizenship as then defined by the Constitution itself, and it can’t be construed any other way, not that I can see at least. The Legislative does not now, and never did, possess an enumerated power to enlarge the concept of naturalization to encompass Presidential eligibility.
The 14th Amendment dealt with the denial of citizenship to a certain class of people previously denied those rights and duties, former slaves. Those slaves became citizens by Amendment, not by birth. Their children, provided they were born in the several States to parents who were themselves citizens, were no doubt natural born citizens.
And so, that historical wrong was righted going forward. But, the 14th did not and cannot enlarge the rights and duties of citizenship to the exclusion of prior, specific language dealing with Presidential eligibility.
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.