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.
And that succinctly encapsulates everything we see going on in the legal system currently.
At this point I urge people to break laws. They no longer have any moral compulsion, and people should just ignore them if they are able.
The Vichy were French as well.
And this is exactly right. Neither does it excuse all those State Officials that glossed over their duty to insist on valid proof of a candidate's eligibility.
What this goes to show is that a large Media assault can cow a lot of people into rolling over and failing to do their jobs.
Nobody cares about your lawyer talk crap. You can argue hairsplitting technicalities till you're blue in the face. The only people who buy them are those who want to believe them anyway.
Like the Constitution itself, the truth has become fungible.
He will drown you in irrelevant crap proclaimed by idiot judges who need to be disbarred, if not placed in jail.
He somehow thinks that the opinions of the various incompetent courts are persuasive. He pushes the fallacy of false authority to an art form. It's his primary weapon in these sorts of discussions.
Nothing in the constitution requires this. It is not a necessary characteristic of "qualifying."
And why in the world is the shoe on the wrong foot in this scenario?
Do you think the founders intended that critics would have to prove someone not a citizen, or do you think they expected someone claiming to be one to prove it?
Why is not the burden of proof where it belongs? On the person who is seeking office?
When Roger Calero ran for President back in 2004, they kicked him off the ballot. Since he couldn't prove he was a US Citizen, this was a completely rational thing to do.
But now we've flipped our sanity by arguing that the candidate doesn't have to prove it, his critics have to prove he isn't!
What a bunch of crap.
I fail to see anywhere in the information you provided that failing to qualify means did not receive the required electoral votes. Not one instance!
The burden IS on the one seeking office. The text of the Twentieth Amendment clearly places this burden on the President-Elect.
"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"
If the President Elect fails at something, it is an action of his, not others. He tries to qualify and succeeds or he tries to qualify and fails.
First off, "fails to qualify" means that Congress must name an interim President and if this is the case, the one from the election cycle didn't "qualify". The Amendment talks about the President Elect either dying before taking the oath or "failing to qualify". In both of these circumstances, we are talking about a "President Elect", a person who has been identified as such does not officially exist until all of the election is over and Congress has banged it's gavel accepting the results. This certainly means that this "qualify" business is something OTHER than election results. What could it be other than the qualifications to hold the office of President, the eligibility requirements from Article Two, section Two?
In order to prove eligibility, being 35 years old or older and being a natural born citizen, it would seem a birth certificate would do the trick. The term "or if the President Elect shall have failed to qualify" describes an action of the President Elect that he failed at so clearly it is the burden of the one seeking the office to qualify.
The 20th amendment does not say that if the president-elect fails to qualify congress must select a new president. It does say that if a president-elect and the vice-president-elect fail to qualify then congress may pass a law describing how a new president is selected. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 already lists who becomes president after the vice-president.
If Obama were to be declared ineligible then Biden would become president under the 20thAmendment.
Who decides what is qualifying evidence? Congress?
While a birth certificate would do the trick, it is not required. Congress could decide to use whatever evidence they deemed sufficient. For example the certifications sent to the individual states made by candidates after the conventions might be considered as qualifying evidence.
I agree entirely. The government — all three branches — have abrogated the social contract. We today are no more bound by its laws than the Colonists were bound by King George’s.
Just as the revolutionaries were nonetheless liable for the consequences of violating those laws, so will we be. But they had the courage to defy them or we would be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road. The New Revolution is underway, and these too will be times that try mens’ souls.
This is the position of common sense. Alas, it is not the position of all 50 Secretaries of State who's responsibility it was to insure this media darling was made to follow the rules.
This is just another manifestation of the fact that Liberal Media has too much power.
That’s just fine. I have no need for anyone in particular to read or to respond to anything that I post, be it long or short. Its a free republic.
Just before the 2009 inauguration, President-elect Obama and Vice-President-elect Biden met with 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices. Maybe they give the justices qualifying evidence then?
In December, 2008 Congressman Paul Ryan’s staff did some type of investigation on Obama’s citizenship. After that whenever a constituent brought up the issue, Ryan would send a letter and copies of Dr. Fukino’s statements about Obama being born in Hawaii. After April, 2011, Ryan stopped sending the Fukino statement with the letter and began sending copies of Obama’s birth certificate.
Did Ryan’s investigation in 2008 qualify Obama?
Since you didn’t agree with my sources, perhaps you could provide us with other sources which state that there is some official body that determines whether a president-elect has qualified in ways other than by receiving a majority of the votes of the Electors?
Can you name an instance where any of the previous president-elects (since 1933 when the 20th amendment was adopted) was determined to have qualified for the office in a way other than by receiving a majority of the votes of the Electors?
It only takes one Representative and one Senator to submit a written objection to the certification of the Electoral vote for both Houses of Congress to stop counting Electoral votes until the written objection is resolved.
3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
In 2011 Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) responded to a request of some of his constituents and asked the Congressional Research Service to provide members of Congress with information on qualifiying for President.
The Congressional Research Service published a report for Congress: “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement” in November, 2011.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
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.