Posted on 06/27/2015 8:12:51 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
Two of the five votes concerning same sex marriage are totally illegitimate. They were cast by Elenor Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer acting as though they are legal members of the United States Supreme Court. Any challenge to this ruling should include a challenge to their legitimacy as they were appointed by a Usurper, not a legal President.
It's time to take the gloves off and get the courage to confront the evil that is before us. I can prove that Obama is illegal just using the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and have made this case many times on this forum. The charade has gone on long enough. We the people have the "reset" button in our hands with the Obama eligibility issue and we need to use it.
That the current federal government has declared war on on every one of us cannot be disputed. Obama's weak spot is his legitimacy as a legal President. Attacking it is our nuclear option. Someone please, hit the button.
I have never researched this part of the topic, It would add substance to the debate though. Perhaps someone can chime in.
Annotations For the Twentieth Amendment
Purpose of the Amendment
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary in its report suggested several reasons for the proposed Twentieth Amendment. It said in part:
‘’[W]hen our Constitution was adopted there was some reason for such a long intervention of time between the election and the actual commencement of work by the new Congress. . . . Under present conditions [of communication and transportation] the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days’ travel of the remotest portions of the country. . . .
‘’Another effect of the amendment would be to abolish the so- called short session of Congress. . . . Every other year, under our Constitution, the terms of Members of the House and one-third of the Members of the Senate expire on the 4th day of March. . . . Experience has shown that this brings about a very undesirable legislative condition. It is a physical impossibility during such a short session for Congress to give attention to much general legislation for the reason that it requires practically all of the time to dispose of the regular appropriation bills. . . . The result is a congested condition that brings about either no legislation or illy considered legislation. . . .
‘’If it should happen that in the general election in November in presidential years no candidate for President had received a majority of all the electoral votes, the election of a President would then be thrown into the House of Representatives and the memberships of the House of Representatives called upon to elect a President would be the old Congress and not the new one just elected by the people. It might easily happen that the Members of the House of Representative, upon whom devolved the solemn duty of electing a Chief Magistrate for 4 years, had themselves been repudiated at the election that had just occurred, and the country would be confronted with the fact that a repudiated House, defeated by the people themselves at the general election, would still have the power to elect a President who would be in control of the country for the next 4 years. It is quite apparent that such a power ought not to exist, and that the people having expressed themselves at the ballot box should through the Representatives then selected, be able to select the President for the ensuing term. . . .
‘’The question is sometimes asked, Why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary to bring about this desirable change? The Constitution [before this amendment] does not provide the date when the terms of Senators and Representatives shall begin. It does fix the term of Senators at 6 years and of Members of the House of Representatives at 2 years. The commencement of the terms of the first President and Vice President and of Senators and Representatives composing the First Congress was fixed by an act of [the Continental] Congress adopted September 13, 1788, and that act provided ‘that the first Wednesday in March next to be the time for commencing proceedings under the Constitution.’ It happened that the first Wednesday in March was the 4th day of March, and hence the terms of the President and Vice President and Members of Congress began on the 4th day of March. Since the Constitution provides that the term of Senators shall be 6 years and the term of Members of the House of Representatives 2 years, it follows that this change cannot be made without changing the terms of office of Senators and Representatives, which would in effect be a change of the Constitution. By another act (the act of March 1, 1792) Congress provided that the terms of President and Vice President should commence on the 4th day of March after their election. It seems clear, therefore, that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to give relief from existing conditions.’’ 1
As thus stated, the exact term of the President and Vice President was fixed by the Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 1, at 4 years, and became actually effective, by resolution of the Continental Congress, on the 4th of March 1789. Since this amendment was declared adopted on February 6, 1933, Sec. 1 in effect shortened, by the interval between January 20 and March 4, 1937, the terms of the President and Vice President elected in 1932.
Similarly, it shortened, by the intervals between January 3 and March 4, the terms of Senators elected for terms ending March 4, 1935, 1937, and 1939; and thus temporarily modified the Seventeenth Amendment, fixing the terms of Senators at 6 years. It also shortened the terms of Representatives elected to the Seventy-third Congress, by the interval between January 3 and March 4, 1935, and temporarily modified Article I, Sec. 2, clause 1, fixing the terms of Representatives at 2 years.
Section 1 further modifies the Twelfth Amendment in its reference to March 4 as the date by which the House must exercise its choice of a President.
Section 2 supersedes clause 2 of Sec. 4 of Article I. The setting of an exact hour for meeting constitutes a recognition of the long practice of Congress, which in 1867 was for the first time enacted into permanent law, 2 only to be repealed in 1871. 3
When the 3d of January fell on Sunday (in 1937), Congress did by law appoint a different day for its assemblage. 4
Pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Sec. 3 of this amendment, Congress shaped the Presidential Succession Act of 1948 5 to meet the situation which would arise from the failure of both President elect and Vice President elect to qualify on or before the time fixed for the beginning of the new Presidential term.
Footnotes
[Footnote 1] S. Rep. No. 26, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 2, 4, 5, 6 (1932).
[Footnote 2] Ch. 10, 14 Stat. 378.
[Footnote 3] Ch. 21, Sec. 30, 17 Stat. 12. See 1 A. Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives Sec. 11 (1907).
[Footnote 4] Ch. 713, 49 Stat. 1826.
[Footnote 5] Ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672, as amended, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 19. See also the Twenty-fifth Amendment, infra, pp. 1991-93.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment20.html#sthash.j6wJ2Mel.dpuf
There is a discussion of the meaning of the phrase “failed to qualify” the book Understanding the Fundamentals of the U.S. Presidential Election System By Alexander S. Belenky (see pages 77- 79)
The Supreme Court also said that slavery is legal.
This will be overcome - after enough people have suffered of course.
Jimmy Carter was a horrible POTUS. He was nothing compared to Barry Soebarka.
“I have proven that to be a legal President, one must “qualify” to Congress or it is the duty of Congress to name a replacement.”
Actually the 20th Amendment says that if a President fails to qualify “then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified:” Congresses role is to pass a law if both the President and Vice-President fail to qualify “declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected”
The amendment doesn’t explain what “failed to qualify” means or what proof is required to show qualification, or whose responsibility it is to determine qualification.
“The significance of the outcome of the Chase impeachment trial cannot be overstated. The vote represented a judgment that impeachment should not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the course of his judicial duties. The important precedent set by Chase’s acquittal has governed the removal by impeachment of federal judges from that day to this: a judge’s judicial acts may not serve as the basis for impeachment – only acts amounting to “high crimes and misdemeanors” can serve as the basis for removing a judge.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist in GRAND INQUESTS: THE HISTORIC IMPEACHMENTS OF JUSTICE SAMUEL CHASE AND PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON 74-89 (1992).
And that there would be extremely faint praise for 'traditional marriage'.
Is that from the opening scene of Macbeth?
LMAO, We’re so fkd.
bump
It appears that most historians, constitutional scholars and political scientists interpret “qualifying” or “failing to qualify” as being related to acquiring a majority of the electoral votes.
“Two congressional reports found that the President-elect is the eventual winner of the majority of electoral ballots cast in December. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, in its 2004 report ‘Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,’ discussed the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect. The report notes that the constitutional status of the President-elect is disputed:
‘Some commentators doubt whether an official President- and Vice President-elect exist prior to the electoral votes being counted and announced by Congress on January 6, maintaining that this is a problematic contingency lacking clear constitutional or statutory direction. Others assert that once a majority of electoral votes has been cast for one ticket, then the recipients of these votes become the President- and Vice President-elect, notwithstanding the fact that the electoral votes are not counted and certified until the following January 6.’
The Congressional Research Service report quotes the 1933 U.S. House committee report accompanying the Twentieth Amendment as endorsing the latter view:
‘It will be noted that the committee uses the term ‘President elect’ in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House. It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the President elect as soon as the votes are cast.’
Both reports make clear that becoming President-elect is contingent upon winning the majority of electoral votes.”—Wikipedia
A putative president-elect then “fails to qualify” by no longer having 270 Electoral votes.
Uncle Sham’s theory could conceiveably be correct if there were enough written objections to the Electors of an alleged ineligible president-elect and those objections were upheld in both Houses of Congress and the putative President-Elect then no longer had a certified majority (270) of the Electoral votes.
Disqualification of enough Electors could result in a president-elect failing to qualify. That would be the final check on an ineligible person assuming the office of president,
Seeing these three despicable bitches in front of the flag is one of the most disgusting images I have ever seen.
I think there should be transcripts of some past joint sessions where eligibility is discussed. IE Chester Arthur for instance or maybe perhaps President number 10, John Tyler, who was one of the first NBC Presidents.
Can you point to one historian, constitutional scholar, or political scientist that has said this?
See the link in post 103 above and here’s another to the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution, 20th Amendment.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/20/essays/182/presidential-terms
The Heritage Article quotes Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School and the excerpt from the book is authored by Alexander S. Belensky, Visiting Professor at M.I.T.
There is also the Congressional Research Service Report: “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31761.pdf
Why haven’t they??
The Media weapon pointed at them. That's why.
You haven't noticed the mass of Islamists sneaking up on them lately? Theo Van Gogh got a taste of what's coming to the Netherlands.
God's time is not man's time. Men just have short attention spans.
No. I would rather have Hillary.
Delaying the poison just gives more time to get it into our veins. I would rather see a backlash from excessive poison administered too quickly, than a successful fatal dose administered slowly enough for the people not to notice.
Before it says that, it says the president shall be a "natural born citizen."
It is axiomatic that the language you cite above is only intended to apply to valid candidates.
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.