Please point to language in 3 USC 15 or otherwise provide statutory authority for the pre-session writings you refer to and we can put this issue to rest.
Well, it's been posted here several times on Free Republic, so I'll have to go and find it. I would have thought that this was well-known by now... considering how much some talk about it... LOL...
I'll post back here when I find it... :-)
My use of the word “conveniently” is apropos given that a workable political solution could do damage to the pro-Obama viewpoint contained in your many posts.
Well, if I were pro-Obama, then I would have voted for him, doncha know... LOL ...
But, as you'll see in many of my posts, and also before the election, I didn't have to know anything about a birth certificate or anything about other documents that many say that they want to see -- for me to know that I wasn't ever going to vote for him.
So, these documents didn't mean too much to me, personally. However, I do realize that getting a birth certificate is important to our system of electing various candidates -- and thus, that's why I've always proposed getting the states to enact legislation making it mandatory that candidates produce their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state.
BUT, all that aside (the documents, the birth certificate and me voting for the GOP ticket) -- what you see here, that you want to present as "pro-Obama" (by your statement) is nothing more than getting down to the core issues of what is going on with Obama and the birth certificate issue -- and then -- after knowing that, getting the solution that presents itself from the understanding of what happened.
From the understanding that I've presented here -- there are two solutions which immediately present themselves -- as a direct result of that understanding of what is happening.
(1) One solution is in regards to the birth certificate, and that's getting the state law that I advocate, up above.
(2) The other solution is in regards to the "natural born status" and that's getting a Supreme Court decision on the matter.
Those two solutions presents themselves, almost automatically, and almost without saying, just by understanding what is happening.
And with #1 and #2 -- that's how you solve the entire mess... you see...
“I’ll post back here when I find it... :-) “
Thank you.
Interestingly, your two solutions that “immediately present themselves” involve long drawn-out efforts that do not timely address what our nation is facing.
Any state that requires candidates to certify eligibility under oath already has the means by which to examine that certification and take legal action. But, since the states appear to need more spine, I applaud new statutes in that regard.
The political composition of future USSC’s could make the NBC question difficult; which is why I adocate presenting the issue to this court and given the socialist tsunami it is obvious sooner is better.
ST: I would like to be wrong about you!
regards,
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certifie
It says nothing about submission in advance, but rather indicates that the they must be "received" during the count proceedings.