Posted on 03/17/2013 6:56:40 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
Jury duty is something we all are asked to serve at one time or another in our lives. In a just society, where the enforcement of law is critical to maintaining civility and order, jury duty is an honor. In an unjust society, where the enforcement of law is simply a charade, jury duty reduces those who are called upon to nothing more than actors and actresses helping to maintain the fraudulent facade of authenticity being put forth by the state.
In my opinion, since it is evident that the Federal laws having to do with the eligibility of the President are currently being ignored by those assigned to enforce them, that there is no law at the top, thus, there can be no law at the bottom.
If the person who supposedly is the chief law enforcement officer in the nation is illegal, how on earth can the rest of any of it be made to seem "legal"? If I were asked to be a juror on a Federal case, I would refuse to render a verdict until the Federal government can prove to me BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the current person claiming to be my President is in fact legally eligible to serve. I would have them quote the evidence that was used to determine his eligibily as required under the Constitution in the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.
If I were a defense attorney in a Federal case, I would force the Federal government to prove to my jury beyond that same reasonable doubt that it is enforcing the laws at the top and not just the laws at the bottom.
If there is no law at the top of the current Federal government, the current Federal government is outlaw and should be dealt with by the Armed Services, County Sheriffs, and the states.
We the People own this country and we are not actors from Hollywood. We need a few of us to start acting like the citizens we are.
American presidential elections are conducted by the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each state plus DC has its own election laws and eligibility requirements. We do not, in effect, have a federal election, we have 50 state elections plus a federal district election.
The Federal Elections Commission has jurisdiction over campaign finance law.
Congress has no statutory authority to disqualify a candidate absent a state level disqualification.
The chief election officer in each state, usually the Secretary of State, has the ultimate authority to determine who is eligible to be on the ballot. In 2012 there were 50 ballot challenges to Obama heard in courts or before Elections Boards in 22 states. None of the ballot challenges were successful. Absent a state’s chief elections officer ruling or a successful court/elections board ballot challenge, Congress had no grounds to act. Those facts are amplified by the fact that none of the defeated candidates who also received Electoral votes: McCain, Palin, Romney or Ryan ever filed suit; nor did the Republican National Committee on their behalf.
Congress had no grounds to charge that the President-elect had failed to qualify.
The FEC has jurisdiction over campaign financing. They are not tasked with checking presidential eligibility.
Congress had no grounds to charge that the President-elect had failed to qualify.
So then there is no federal law to protest as Uncle Sham would like us to do.
Then who does the Constitution say must determine whether the President is eligible. It's not in the 20th Amendment itself.
“The FEC has jurisdiction over campaign financing. They are not tasked with checking presidential eligibility.”
—
Yeah, that’s what I said.
I think that Uncle Sham is correctly alluding to the federal statute that allows any one Representative and any one Senator to object in writing to the certification of the Electoral votes of a candidate at the Joint Session of Congress held to count the Electoral votes.
Neither Dick Cheney nor Joe Buden, in their roles as President of the Senate asked for objections, they just certified.
The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are. It's right there in the Constitution under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three:
"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." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify", something they may have done on purpose in this instance depending upon the reasons why. National security? Who knows at this point.
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".
Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.
If Congress can essentially ignore and thus "nullify" a provision of the Constitution, what is law? What good is a system of laws that those at the top of the food chain can ignore while suppressing those of us near the bottom through illegitimate enforcement. They derive their powers from the very document that they are ignoring. This is a farce and they must be called on to admit it by facing the truth. Nullification. If they can do it, so can We the People.
The Constitution does not say who is responsible for checking the candidate's credentials. It would take legislation passed by Congress to do that. And I'm not aware of any such law being on the books. Maybe there should be, but currently there isn't. So Obama's qualifications or lack there of fall into a grey area. Maybe he is qualified. Maybe he isn't. But he isn't required to provide any more than he has, and there is nobody tasked with looking into it.
I just proved my argument. Ignore the truth or misinterpret all you want on that eight-hour shift of yours.
There has been no finding by any authorized body, judicial or legislative that Barack Obama failed to qualfy under Article 20. He stopped being President-Elect when he took the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day.
A federal judge ruled on this in 2009 in a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States:
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
The Supreme Court ruled in Fairchild v. Hughes that all citizens have a right to a government that is administered according to law. The seating of an ineligible president does not conform to the law (or the Constitution), thus such a person is not technically a "sitting" president. Under Art. III, it is within the judicial power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. This is not a power delegated to Congress. There's no reason that the courts cannot enforce Art. II and the 20th Amendment in order to ensure that all citizens have a government that is run according to law.
I would like to see/know some means or indisputable mechanism given by the Constitution as the ‘supreme’ means by which Obama could be removed from the office of POTUSA. I am wondering why the Founders used the word ‘under’ in Article III Section2 when addressing the power of the SC instead of a common word such as ‘concerning’. I can take such wording to have meaning that the Constitution is ‘over’ the SC and that takes me to the Preamble that says upfront ‘We The People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union........ do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’. Looking at it this way it seems Congress has to take an issue with POTUSA to the people. I think Obama and his enablers recognized a convoluted action would be necessary to remove him.
Yes you did. It makes no sense, but you did provide it.
I just proved that he failed to qualify under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. It is his burden to qualify in order to meet the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of President. His "failure to qualify" still stands as is. If Congress refused to do its job under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three, that doesn't equate to him "qualifying" at all.
You are correct about him being "President-Elect" until election day. From that day on he became a usurper, not a legal President.
Neither the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court of the United States saw fit to overturn Judge Carter.
Neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch have found that an ineligible person was inaugurated.
Courts have ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. No court has ruled to the contrary.
For example, one of several rulings: Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “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 is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Cite the evidence this ruling was based upon. If you can't do it this shift, come up with it when you get back to work tomorrow.
You can just follow the links and read the opinions in their entirety for yourself. Judges set out their rationales in their opinions:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “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 is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Gordon: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Thanks for the great examples of circular logic. All it takes is a look at ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said:
United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.
Different legal reasons?? Evidently Judge Carter wasn't exactly right in his views. As far as the legislative branch finding that an ineligible person was inaugurated --- that's like expecting blind people to point at other blind people. We already know this issue is partisan and that the balance of power is on the Democrat side. We also know this issue has been marginalized with accusations of racism, so Republicans are afraid to touch it. This example means nothing. The judicial branch is hiding behing standing and a variety of legal hurdles. They can't even agree with each other as I've just shown. And as for courts that have "ruled Obama to be a natural-born citizen," ... again the reasoning and legal foundation is inconsistent with each other and with the Supreme Court precedent. And thanks for pointing out Judge Clay Land, an expert at giving ridiculous decisions. What you quoted is a personal opinion for which Judge Land gives NO REASONABLE LEGAL BASIS. Judge Land pretend he's dealing in facts, but then he say stuff like this:
Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers.
An "official birth certificate" isn't about being satisfactory to someone's counsel or to her so-called "followers." There are Federal and State Rules that constitute what a legal birth certificate must contain. Obama's jpgs and PDFs don't comply with those rules. Judge Land ignores that presidential candidates must attest to their eligiblity to get on states' election ballots and that eligiblity can be challenged when there is no clear legal evidence to support a candidate's claim of eligibility. That burden DOES fall on such a candidate, especially when there's a preponderance of evidence to show that the public record says such a person was born outside of the United States. Why is it so hard for these judges to be consistent with each other and to follow the law??
There was a guy named Charles Gordon who wrote an essay back in 1968 when Mitt Romney's dad was running for president that talked about how it would be nearly impossible to stop an ineligible candidate from getting elected (if popular enough) because of the legal standing hurdles and because of how the impeachment process is so political. It's almost like it was an Idiot's Guide for Ineligible Candidates, and Obama, the 'brilliant' law student at Harvard most likely read this essay and developed a plan to do just that. It certainly helped that Bush was so unpopular with liberals and that liberals are so easy to sway because they are so impulsive and irrational. This made that much easier for Obama to galvanize support to help overcome any questons about his ineligibility.
The Supreme Court of the United States refused to stay Judge Land’s $20,000 sanction levied against Orly Taitz for filing a frivolous lawsuit and as I said, the Supreme Court also refused to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama. Trying to parse the words of a judicial ruling may be an interesting intellectual exercise for a blog, but the judge’s ruling, personal and/or legal, stands.
The Supreme Court is extremely selective about what it accepts to hear. This says nothing about the quality of Land's decision. There's doubt they would have looked at it that closely. Plus, anything filed by Orly Taitz is a mess to begin with, but that doesn't reconcile the erratic rulings by the courts that can't even agree with each other on the basic legal reasoning.
Trying to parse the words of a judicial ruling may be an interesting intellectual exercise for a blog, but the judge’s ruling, personal and/or legal, stands.
Again, thanks for illustrating circular logic. Plenty of other bad decisions stand unchecked. We hear about them all the time on the rare occasions that people have the resources to go back and retry certain cases. Nobody is forcing you to defend these inconsistent decisions regarding Obama's lack of eligibility.
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.