The 20th Amendment says that if the President elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th the VP elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
Lakin and everybody else in this country deserves to have an answer to whether Obama “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009.
Since the Hawaii DOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended, and since Hawaii law says that an amended BC has no inate probative value, even Obama’s age is legally undetermined at this point. How could he have qualified by Jan 20th if nobody even to this day can legally say how old he is?
Wouldn’t some court, any court have to rule on whether Obama’s birth documents are amended or not in order for that allegation to have any significance?
Instead we’ve got US District Court Judges making statements like: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that it is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubrdly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court Judge Clay R. Land in dismissing Rhodes v MacDonald. Judge Land’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court when both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito and then the whole Court refused to enjoin the $20,000 in sanctions that Judge Land imposed on Orly Taitz in this lawsuit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2622175/posts?page=19#19
Please explain the relevance of the images in this post.
There IS Evidence that Obama is not constitutionally eligible.
Kthnksbai.