It isn't known who his real father is or where he was born. We have yet to see a valid document stating such. It is precisely "that we don't know whether or not he is eligible to serve" that is the reason we do know he is not a legal President.
The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3:
"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."
A few notes.
1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.
"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."
2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify."
3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.
4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.
Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Well said.
Do you think Joe Biden realizes that he is in fact the president of the United States?
Is there a state law in FLA which prevents ineligible people from being on the ballot?
If the law allows it, one would seem to be arguing that such a law violates the constitutional (which sounds silly). It might be unconstitutional for Obama to take office, but unconstitutional for FLA to put him on the ballot?
Kick him off the ballot and that forces Obambi to become the plaintiff.
Hey Congress and SCOTUS, Obama failed to qualify. We have no proof who his mother was. No proof who his father was. We do not have a long form birth certificate. He has presented fraudulent documents purporting to be short form copies of a birth certificate. So what is your next step? What are you going to do? If he didn't qualify, he was illegally sworn in. His Presidency is null and void. So now what?
Who is Obama? Does anyone really know? Does the CIA?
While I will agree that we really don't know who the sperm donor is he has told us who it is and I accept that, making him ineligible. If it is found out later that his daddy was a US Citizen then he committed fraud and is ineligible. Thank you for posting the 20th article for reference. I did that back in Oct '08. Of course it fell on blind eyes.
This elegantly circular argument between the "Birthers," and the "Constitutionalists," should keep you busy until the cows come home, Uncle Sham. It is also, IMNSVHO, the crux of Team Obama's strategy for de-fanging the issue of constitutional eligibility. Obama cannot prove he was born in Hawaii. Apparently, we can't prove he wasn't. He has admitted that his father was a foreign subject. "But without a genuine BC," you say, "how can we figure out exactly who the papa was?"
Rather than rule one way or tother, the courts, up to and including The Supreme Court have decided that the whole issue isn't worth their time. Sheriff Joe has proof of documentary chicanery ... but nowhere to take it. In the meantime Rubio and Jindal are being bruited about as VP candidates. That, IMNSVHO, means that neither party is interested in constitutional eligibility at this time.
Suffice it to say, that with 5 months to go until the election, this whole fandango just might be a classic misdirection, a waste of bandwidth, and a tremendous gift to Obama's re-election campaign. Just what is a reasonable fellow to do?
IMNSVHO, fuggedaboutit. Let's concentrate on job 1,
In re: We have yet to see a valid document
TRUE.WE have yet to see one, yet those in authority to challenge the documents have accepted them. Perhaps, just maybe, I hope, that after the Magic Marxist Mombasa Mulatto leaves office, the black-robed bumkissers of our judicial branch will bestir themselves to look at the ENTIRE citizenship issue ... after that is, they feel the threat of "urban unrest" has past. For example, IMNSVHO, the consummately stupid and pernicious custom of awarding citizenship to the offspring of those here illegally, the children of legal non-citizen residents, or the children born to visitors on a tourist visa, has absolutely no basis in law.