Posted on 11/29/2009 7:25:53 PM PST by Man50D
A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
The case asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
CHENEY? would be part of this????
It is good to see that this case is moving forward, although I’m not holding out a lot of hope. I do believe that this approach has merit, but the anointed one is a slippery cuss...
Either way, keep his feet to the fire. The truth will come out. I pray we still have a country left once it does.
I have always thought that as soon as Obama was a liability to the marxist cause that somehow his birth certificate would show up. He would then be replaced by another patsy. Having seen him botch every thing he has tried we might be seeing it soon.
You bet. He did nothing. What he was supposed to do was ask the House members “...who challenges the nomination?” It is traditional and he purposefully skipped it even though at least one person had risen to challenge the nomination and was ignored.
you know I have no idea what the answer is but there are questions and it is up to obama to answer these .
Instead he refuses to show his past and if I was on the left I would still raise the same question.
Why does he not show it and get it over with?
All of this is going ot go on and on until there is an answer and for the lefty trolls.
Instead of trying to make make fun of those who question why not question and ask yourselves, just shut these right wingers up by showing it instead of sealing it
This reads like the paternity angle is the main one. I have always thought the location was unimportant since it was just the opening step in a long list of disqualifying reasons.
correct
the question was out there before the election and yet everyone including the media ignored it.
Senate connection?
Let’s pray that America’s best days are ahead of us. I’m glad that one case has the chance to be heard on this Interloper acting as our President.
Cheney presided over the senate when the electoral votes were certified (I think I have the terms right). An objection may have been raised and he may have ignored it. There seemed to have been a lack of due diligence to certify that the candidate was indeed qualified to hold office.
Well, the Vice President is the President of the Senate. Although a ceremonial title, the VP can be called upon to cast a vote if the Senate vote on a bill is tied at 50/50.
- Traveler
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
"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.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” 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.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” 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.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
There is an alternate approach which would not depend upon the courts. It is THIS ONE LAW passed by a state or two. It would end the charade NOW.
HA...GOOD POINT! They are NUTS...and Cheney would likely take the fall to get Obomba removed! He’d be a hero! I just thought it was the responsibility of the Party to certify the qualifications of THEIR candidate!
Ping!
There were no objections called for by VP Cheney, and no
audible objections were sounded from any member of Congress
before the Electoral Vote count was called.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaE5NGgLtxo
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.