Posted on 02/19/2011 7:18:52 AM PST by Zakeet
For the past couple of weeks, I've been writing about Republican politicians' birther problem.
Whether or not the issue is one of mere symbolic belief or genuine agreement among large segments of the Republican base, GOP leaders feel obligated to mollify those among their base who believe the outlandish conspiracy theory that president wasn't born in the United States or that he's secretly a Muslim. But now former President George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove has come up with a new conspiracy theory that is less dumb than the original one, but not by much. According to Rove, the White House wants Republicans to continue raising doubts about Obama's citizenship in order to make the GOP look kooky:
[Snip]
The problem, of course, is that at least one recent poll showed that a majority of Republicans have doubts about the president's citizenship, which explains the rise of "post-birtherism." Republican leaders don't want to anger a large section of their base by flatly calling this stuff what it is, which is nuts. So the new approach is to joke about it or to carefully avoid denouncing the idea completely.
[Snip]
The idea that the issue is a "trap" is belied by the ease with which Republican leaders could shut the entire matter down. All they have to do is say it's silly.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
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.”
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.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
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.
This is categorically not true. FOIA all you like, and all you'll find is that Thomas Jefferson didn't present a birth certificate to run for president. Abe Lincoln didn't present a birth certificate. Teddy Roosevelt didn't. Eisenhower didn't. Reagan didn't. It's run on the honor system and always has.
If the candidate has no honor, and the electorate has no brains, there's no mechanism to enforce this rule.
Would it be proper, legal and wise to make a rule saying, "Presidential candidates must supply a long form birth certificate."? Sure. Have your state require it. Future problem solved. Current problem, we're stuck with.
B-b-b-but nothing. That's it.
My intent was to show that there is in fact a mechanism which REQUIRES that the President elect prove his ability to meet the eligibility requirements or he is not a legal President. Whether honor exist in Congress to the extent that they enforce section three is another story.
Your words...
"That fact is not in dispute.."
The amount of money Obama has spent on birther lawsuits is pure internet speculation. Perpetrated by WND. Have you seen listed billable hours from any actual birther lawyers involved with any actual birther cases? Of course you haven't...it's just another birther myth.
Since I'm the one demanding a little more proof before I believe every new birther rumor, perhaps you're the one who should exercise a little more caution in future real estate transactions.
Even the possibility that it will finally be PROVED for all to see that Obama does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements during the ballot qualification process next year has to be very disconcerting to lots of powerful people in both political parties. I don't think they can risk even a low probability given the cataclysmic effects such exposure would have which makes me think Obama resigning for unrelated reasons (health probably) is the most likely outcome.
Apparently I did read it.
Are you trying to steal my point from me?
Was George Washington born in the United States of America?
This is an absurd position to take.
Are you trying to be funny?
All in fun? Ha Ha Ha?
Why not prove other stuff?
There is no proof that the sun rises in the east.
Prove that it doesn't.
“So “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the US are eligible to be president someday? I think not.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Like you I consider the idea absurd but some Freepers seem to believe that is the case. It was certainly NOT the intent of the framers. They didn’t intend any kind of citizenship for children born to people who were in the country illegally or even legally if they were merely temporary residents.
Jefferson, Lincoln and Theo Roosevelt never HEARD of the 20th Amendment. It was ratified in 1933, long after the aforementioned had gone to their eternal rewards.
That leaves (from your examples) Eisenhower and Reagan, both of whose life stories and family histories were well known as opposed to, say, someone about whom absolutely nothing is known or verifiable. So that’s a pretty lame counter to the question raised.
“Snopes was referring to the 14th Amendment on laws governing US residence, etc. That’s all well and good, except they state his birthplace of Hawaii as fact. No one but the usurper himself knows if that is a fact or not.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Even Obama himself only knows what he has been told about it. I can show you the room in the little house in which my youngest brother now lives that was my birthplace but I certainly have no recollection of the event. I believe I was born there because I have no reason to doubt it.
“What is your point?”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
All those you name were citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution. They could not have been natural born citizens. There were no natural born citizens until children were born after the adoption of the constitution, that is why the document is worded the way it is. Read it. No qualified natural born citizens existed until thirty five years after the formation of the United States of America under the constitution so an exemption was written to allow those who were citizens at the adoption of the constitution to serve as commander in chief.
Perhaps we will never know the whole truth about this Man From Nowhere, so much of his past has been scrubbed or hidden.
Perhaps it is part of his plan to jerk around Conservatives around an unprovable issue like the BC, and the Birth Certificate will turn up before the next Election.
Just remember, There is absolutely no proof, legal or otherwise, that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
*********
Presidential candidate: I thought the burden of proof was on a presidential candidate to provide legal proof that he was born in the United States and that he is old enough to run for president.
It is not up to me or the rest of the public to prove one way or another that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is up to Obama to provide such legal proof.
That is why I can't wait to see Obama's applications to run for president in the 57 states: I want to see the OFFICIAL Hawaii document that Obama attaches to his application that states OFFICIALLY that Obama was born in Hawaii on a certain date.
I don't think that Hawaii can provide such a document. But only time will tell.
So that’s a pretty lame counter to the question raised.
No, it's not.
The requirement to be a natural born citizen is 200+ years old. The 20th Amendment is irrelevant, which was the point of my reply. The standard was the same for Thomas Jefferson as it was for William Jefferson Clinton.
"Well know life stories" is not a legal threshold. It doesn't mean anything, other than "the people will decide". Other presidents weren't required to submit paperwork to prove where they were born.
If it's the realm of public opinion to do the vetting, then ... it's the realm of public opinion to do the vetting. Which is exactly what happened.
You have a calculator, figure it out. The 1 mil figure may be underestimated.
“Just remember, There is absolutely no proof, legal or otherwise, that Obama was not born in Hawaii.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Either you are joking or you are a real goof ball. There is no proof I was NOT born in Kenya except that there is ample evidence that I was born in South Carolina. There is nearly NO evidence to prove that Obama was born anywhere other than that he appears to be alive. There is absolutely no proof that he was NOT born in Kenya or in Australia either. Come to think of it there is absolutely no proof that he was not brought here on a spaceship from the planet Zorch. I would rule out Krypton because he ain’t none too swift.
It is the job of Congress to do the vetting. Whether they did or not, we really don't have any evidence to show do we? We have been asking the wrong person to provide the evidence we are all in search of. Our congressman should be able to explain just how section three was dealt with or he/she is in violation of their oath of office.
They are worried their credibility will tank. Oh, excuse me while I laugh since it is already in the tank.
Maybe, but it ain’t Obama ..
Perhaps there was o father listed, but it wouldn’t matter.
What matters is where his father was born. we would just have to stick to his story that his father was kenyan.
“Presidential candidate: I thought the burden of proof was on a presidential candidate to provide legal proof that he was born in the United States and that he is old enough to run for president.”
The Constitution tells us the requirements for the Office; a candidate must be at least 35 years of age and a natural born citizen of the US. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the US Constitution requiring proof.
The Constitution does not define “ natural born citizen”. We can infer from the Founder’s writings, and the contemporary writings they cited, but there is nothing actually spelled out.
Hopefully, before the 2012 Election, there will be enough pressure to force the issue. It is important for 2012 , and for the future of The Republic.
IMO there should be a requirement that candidates show legal proof they meet the requirements for Office. That might be left to the individual States, or it might require a Constitutional Amendment.
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.