Posted on 09/10/2009 9:42:35 PM PDT by moonpie57
In Burton v. United States:
the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of federal law which on its face purported to make one convicted of bribery
“ineligible” to be a United States Senator, could not act as a forfeiture of a Senator’s office, since the only way to remove a Member under the Constitution was by the
Senate exercising its authority over its own Members.
RELEVANT CASE: AN INELIGIBLE SENATOR COULD NOT BE REMOVED (EXCEPT BY THE SENATE).
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Congress+removal+from+office&fr=yfp-t-501&u=lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf&w=congress+removal+remove+removed+office&d=TA4d1t29TdK9&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=VLhFTADt5rS1TVD7Vsyp9g—
No it did not. Much data was tracked by race of the mother. Race of the child isn't even on the national standard Certificate of Live birth. Not on the 2003 version you posted a link to (which may be still in use today), or the 1961 version which was in the pdf document I linked to, in section 5-7 page 5-4. Those, the individual state versions of those are the source of all the data in the report, so how could it be the race of the child, since that is not even on the source documents?
Even today, a parent can put whatever they want in race. All they have to do is check "other" and fill in the blank. See for yourself under item 25:
That's todayc not 1961. Things have changed.
BURTON VS. UNITED STATES
this IS relevant because it shows that there was a plaintiff tryng to remove an ineligible Senator. (And the SCOTUS heard the case.) EXTRAORDINARY.
The clerk typed up the form from the inputs of the "informant", which could be either parent. The clerk has a standard list of terms. One of those was negro, which in '61 was the proper term for BHO Sr. BHO Jr can call himself whatever he wants, and the current form, that you provided a link for, allows for checking more than one box. It would be interesting to see what was checked on the BCs of his daughters for "race of father".
I see your perspective, but tell me, which President is going to remove the one in the Oval Office heading the executive branch. ... What are you digging for, anyway?
You may be falling into the obamanoid trap. We have no way of knowing what is on any document from whatever year int eh Hawaiian Vital Records. We don’t know what may be listed as race of father or even if father is listed. The obamanoids are trying their damndest to establish a default lie that someone in the public has seen or that there actually exist things that have not been enumerated. It is a clever ploy don’t ya think, nudging you into accepting their false axiom?
The case is not relevent, BTW, because it does not question eligibility to run and hold the office elected to. But that was a nice try.
Chester Arthur, VP under Garfield, but became President upon the assassination of Garfield by one of Arthur's supporter. He not only hid his records, which of course were much less extensive in he 1860s, 70s and 80, than they are today. But he went further and burned most of his private papers well after he was no longer in office. But he missed some, his father's naturalization certificate, which was found in the Library of Congress, fairly recently, and the Arthur family bible, which established that he had indeed lied about his year of birth. His father was naturalized when he was just under 14. Arthur lied about a lot of other stuff about his family history, such as his father's age when he left Ireland (Northern, he was Scots-Irish), where he went to, Canada, at age 22 rather than the US at age 18, how old his father was at his birth (40 rather than 33) and the fact that his parents lived in Canada until after the birth of his oldest sibling. (His mother was from Vermont). While Arthur was born in the US, he was born a British subject, just like you know who. The difference being he successfully concealed that fact, you know who freely admits it.
digging for?
there are examples of attempts to challenge presidential elections or remove presidents from office. If legal methods are not followed, the entire matter becomes a joke.
I refer you to the Nixon impeachment hearings of 1974, as just one example.
Burton was ineligible to run for the office. His prior conviction for bribery made him ineligible. How many court cases have you read the opinions on? A big interest of yours?
i found a court case regarding removing an ineligible officeholder
see #1121 & #1123
You forget, it's illegal for them to release the information on "vital records", which include Certificates of Live Birth, Certifications too, except to a very limited number of persons. Absent a court order/subpoena that is.
They can't complain.
Actually, if you think about it, it's the perfect place for an incompetent or otherwise marginal doctor. She's not going to kill anybody while doing that job, and most likely her underlings do all the work anyway. Unfortunately, she seems to be something of a political hack.
The Constitution most explicitly makes someone not a natural born citizen not eligible to the office of President.
Totally different situation. Impeachment is for President's who misbehave, not for ineligible usurpers.
In this case they would be ordering a usurper to vacate the office for which he never lawfully held, not removing a President.
exactly, EG
Burton v. United States was a case involving someone who was not eligible.
Possibly, but it's just an intellectual exercise. He's admitted his father was not a US Citizen at the time of his birth. Doesn't matter what country Pop was a citizen of, as long as it wasn't the US. The race thing is just one piece of what makes that COLB suspecious. The fact that it's a clear forgery, leaving aside what it says, is another.
3 branches of government. Separate, but EQUAL.
Not eligible under a statute, but perfectly eligible under the Constitution. What that case is saying is that Congress can't change the eligibility requirements.
Somehow that part of my post got clipped. It's getting late and I must have fat fingered the html.
No one was alleging that Nixon was not eligible to hold the office in the first place. Thus, he was President, and when he misbehaved, he could be impeached. Although unlike only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, he never was.
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.