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 was hoping for textbook references or cites from research articles to back up your contention.
What is amazing to me is just how little has been written by anybody concerning the phrase “shall have failed to qualify” in the 20th Amendment.
The electoral votes are counted on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. That was December 17th in 2012. So that’s when we have a presumptive president-elect. The Joint Session of Congress held to count and certify the votes of the Electors is held on January 6th but Obama changed the day to January 4th in 2013 because the 6th was a Sunday.
Confirming qualifications is somewhat dysfunctional under the current system since Congress is in Christmas recess from the time the Electors choose the presumptive President-Elect until the counting and certification of the electoral votes which confirms who is the president/vice president.
Those who challenged Obama’s qualifications had almost no time to make their case under the provisions of the 20th Amendment, no matter how one interprets its meaning.
I guess the case can be made that if ne Representative and one Senator are convinced that the president elect dd jot qualify, they can interrupt the certification process and present their argument to their full House of Congress.
The problem is that Congress at some point in time stopped at section 15. To all of sudden follow through with their duty under U.S. Code 3 Chapter 1 would be not only be embarrassing but also appear to be racist to all of sudden ask for “papers” from a black President elect.
If that was a problem let black Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and black Representatives Mia Love of Utah and Will Hurd of Texas carry the ball.
There’s nothing racist about Black members of Congress challenging Obama’s qualifications. All that was needed was one Senator and one Representative to submit a written objection. Then both Houses of Congress would have debated and voted on the objection.
Rebuttals to your posts obviously do not suit your interests, but they are very much in the interests of people who want it to remain a Free Republic.
You sow popular fallacies, and in my opinion to the detriment of what is best for the Nation. (Nation/Natal/Nature have same root. Means "related to birth.")
Maybe he did, but I know of no evidence that he gave any such qualifying information to the 50 Secretaries of State who should have done their job and demanded to see evidence before placing this non-American Ass-Bastard on the ballot.
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.
The trouble with that is all her statements are parsed and inconclusive, and seemingly written with the deliberate intention of being non-specific and inconclusive.
Passing them off as definitive when they really are not is a disservice to the nation.
Did Ryan’s investigation in 2008 qualify Obama?
I would not think so. No. The only thing that would qualify a man who had spent a great many years misleading people into believing he was foreign born would be a US Birth certificate that is explicit and verified by the State authorities to be an original record. (Not an abstract thereof.)
Even then, it only establishes 14th amendment citizenship, which is not at all the same thing as "Natural Born Citizenship."
Obviously resort to the 14th amendment to establish citizenship means it cannot be "natural", or by nature.
It is the duty of all Americans to enforce constitutional law. The Secretaries of state did not understand their duty, or they did not take it seriously.
Now we live with the absurd interpretation by our absurd courts that the Secretaries of state have no obligation to enforce this aspect of constitutional law, but can do so if the whim suits them.
I look forward to the day when we start explaining to Judges the absurdity of these sorts of rulings by usage of baseball bats.
Tar and Feathers might serve as an alternative.
They did a far better and more accurate one back in the 1960s regarding George Romney. By the standards of that CRS report, Obama wouldn't have qualified.
Since the U.S. Code 3 Chapter 1 Section 19 was enacted in 1948 looking at presidential elections prior to then is probably fruitless. The previous Presidential Succession Acts (1886 and 1792) did not include the “fail to qualify” language (removal, death, resignation or inability).
1792 Act
1886 Act
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act_1886
BTW, technically they stop at section 18. Section 16 is just the seating chart for the joint session of Congress during the Electoral College vote count (and therefore always used), section 17 was last employed in 2004 (last time there was an object to the Electoral College vote) and section 18 just gives the President of the Senate (usually the current Vice-President) control of the joint session.
I'm sure you're right but from his response to constituents it appears Congressman Ryan would disagree with that theory.
Thank you and I do understand all that but I also know that there was some controversy surrounding Chester Arthur and I would think that maybe there was discussion when the first NBC became CIC.
A lot of people adhere to the theory that citizenship granted at birth by any means is exactly the same as natural citizenship. (Virtually the entire Legal community) I think even some of the constitutional delegates thought this way as well.
From what I can tell it appears as if they all thought they knew what was meant by "natural born citizen" when in fact there may very well have been differences of opinion.
There is evidence that supports both sides, but the preponderance of it appears to come down on the most stringent interpretation, in my opinion.
I have researched this issue for at least six years now, and I think I know how everything went off the rails.
It appears that the issue of Slavery is what destroyed the original meaning of the term of art "natural born citizen."
I’m sorry you feel that way but you can’t please all of the people all of the time. It would certainly be fallacious to say that I was doing that.
I’ll leave it to the individual reader to decide what they consider to be fallacious and what they consider to be true.
Were the long, detailed annotations for the 20th amendment “fallacious?” How about the link to the section of the U.S. Code dealing with the Electoral College process? Anything fallacious there?
Anything fallacious in the link to a book that discusses the meaning of “president-elect shall have failed to qualify” in the 20th amendment?
Was the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the purpose of the 20th amendment fallacious?
Is there anything fallacious about discussing the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress’ 2004 report “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” which discusses the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect.
Did the report disappear so that it couldn’t be applied in 2008 or in 2012?
No. I have a link to it somewhere in my forest of links.
It's still out there as of last year. I've referred you to it before... back when I still knew where the link was.
The term Natural Born Citizen was not affected by the Fourteenth Amendment as it was not even mentioned. A natural born citizen is someone whose citizenship is determined by nature rather than law. If someone is born in a country to two citizen parents of that same country, they can be nothing else but a citizen of that country. Their citizenship is totally non-disputable. If either of the parents are not citizens of the country someone is born in, or as in the case of John McCain, whose parents were both U.S. Citizens but he was born under Panamanian jurisdiction, then their is dispute about what type of citizenship applies. Laws regulate the disputes. Paperwork can never apply to natural born citizenship, it was an act of nature.
Secretaries of State were SUED over this issue in Alabama (McInnish v Chapman), Ohio (Daniels v Husted), California (Dummett v Bowen), Georgia (Farrar v Kemp), Vermont (Paige v Condos) and Mississippi (Taitz v Hosemann, et. al.)
In Kansas and Arizona, Secretaries of State took the additional step of having Obama’s credentials verified by the state of Hawaii.
When you are sued, you understand why you are being sued.
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States says “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The state of Hawaii since 2008 has issued 8 verifications for Obama’s birth vital record. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause there is nothing that Secretaries of State or judges can do.
Here’s just one of the verifications, and I intentionally pickd the shortest one: July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Yes. The insinuation that U.S. Code has anything to do with Constitutional law. As I have pointed out to you before, US Code doesn't redefine constitutional terms.
Was the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the purpose of the 20th amendment fallacious?
Yes. It was a poorly researched and poorly argued appeal to false authority.
Is there anything fallacious about discussing the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress’ 2004 report “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” which discusses the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect.
Yes. It was nothing but a post hoc ad hoc fig leaf deliberately solicited by congressmen who wanted the issue to go away. It too is a poorly researched and poorly argued appeal to false authority.
!
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.