OK. Prove it! And by that I mean actually PROVE IT and not just by repeating the speculations and sadly, the way too often easily debunked and often wild conspiracy theories based on the musings and postings of yourself and people on the worldwideinterwebs and or some half baked real estate agent / dentist / part time correspondence school attorney (yes, by that I do mean Orly Taitz /s ).
Do I have doubts as to whether Obama’s Hawaiian BC is legitimate? Sure, well maybe I do. But truthfully a lot of it and at least some of the people pushing the idea seem to far too often also seem to fall into and be in the very same groups as the 9-11 Truthers and Sandy Hook Hoaxers and the Moon Landing Was Fake brigades – in other words – often lacking a lot of credibility IMO and some stemming from professional cranks with their own credibility issues.
The reality, whether we like it or not, there is no real solid proof of Obama’s ineligibility to serve as POTUS nor has any legitimate legal challenge to his eligibility has ever been presented and more importantly, no challenge has ever been taken up by or affirmed by any court – state, local or federal.
Officials of the state of Hawaii has certified that his BC is legitimate and therefore his citizenship and eligibility, (whether or not you or I agree or interpret who is a “natural born citizen” is a different matter), but even more importantly, Congress has confirmed many if not most of his nominees including Kagen and Sotomayer to the Supreme Court, and did so without ever questioning his eligibility to do so in the first place, to nominate them or any other appointee - so in other words, the point is now way past moot.
If Obama’s nominees were illegal because he was not legally eligible to serve as POTUS in the first place, Congress should have, would have, could have, might have acted then, but they didn’t.
And I’m not even sure you fully understand the intent of the 20th Amendment or particularly the 3rd clause. The main purpose of the 20th was to move the term of POTUS, the inauguration date up from March 4th (or actually in actual effect from April) to January 20th and thus effectively shortening the prior much longer and unproductive “lame duck sessions” that hampered the Government for several months every 4 years and were no longer as necessary as they had been prior to modern modes of transportation, back in the days “when any newly elected official might require several months to put his affairs in order and then undertake an arduous journey from his home to the national capital, but it eventually had the effect of impeding the functioning of government in the modern age.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Historical_background
It also addressed the issue of what would happen if the President and or the Vice President elect died before being to officially take office, or if by January 20th, there was still a question or dispute as to the outcome of the election as in the result of the Electoral College, i.e. that “eligibility” question, not per se the question of whether the POTUS elect was a “natural born citizen” or meeting the age and residency requirements in the first place – the eligibility criteria set forth in the Constitution, but as to the question of Electoral College outcome, whereas by if by January 20th what would happen if there was no clear winner who had been certified. At least that is my read of it. YMMV.
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.
The bottom line is that Congress did not enact its powers under the 20th A and the 3rd clause in either 2008 or in 2012 to question Obama’s eligibility because Obama had already been deemed to be qualified to serve by both his party and in every state in which he was on the ballot. And FWIW, as far as I understand, it would be up to the individual state election laws to determine who was or wasn’t eligible to be on the ballot, although Congress in certifying the votes and results from the Electoral College, would have the last say if a legitimate question as to eligibility arose, but Congress didn’t act so again, the point is now moot and Obama’s SCOTUS picks, having been confirmed by congress, whether we like it or their decisions or not are not “illegitimate” just because you deem Obama to be a usuper in your non-legal and non-binding opinion.
Liberals think that Roberts and Alito are not legitimate because President Bush was appointed not elected.....both sides have issues with the justices in one way or the other. Yes did this stink? Yes. But liberals thought Citizen’s United stunk so we get some and we lose some.
Yep, people seem to forget that. I would also add that if McCain had won the election in 2008, that the liberals would have suddenly have become “birthers” and would have claimed that all his nominees were invalid because he was not a “natural born citizen”. I also seem to recall some speculation both from the right and left that Romney really wasn’t a “natural born citizen” as well. I would hazard to guess that if Carly Fiorina were to somehow get the GOP nomination, that some on the left would call for the immediate repeal of the 19th Amendment – LOL!
“Yep, people seem to forget that. I would also add that if McCain had won the election in 2008, that the liberals would have suddenly have become “birthers” and would have claimed that all his nominees were invalid because he was not a “natural born citizen”. I also seem to recall some speculation both from the right and left that Romney really wasn’t a “natural born citizen” as well. I would hazard to guess that if Carly Fiorina were to somehow get the GOP nomination, that some on the left would call for the immediate repeal of the 19th Amendment – LOL! “
The issue for Mitt Romney and some birthers (mainly people who wanted a true conservative rather than the creator of Romneycare) was that his father, George Romney was born in the polygamous Mormon enclave of Colonia Dublan, in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico and under the Mexican Constitution, was born with Mexican citizenship as well as U.S. citiznship.
“The bottom line is that Congress did not enact its powers under the 20th A and the 3rd clause in either 2008 or in 2012 to question Obama’s eligibility because Obama had already been deemed to be qualified to serve by both his party and in every state in which he was on the ballot. And FWIW, as far as I understand, it would be up to the individual state election laws to determine who was or wasn’t eligible to be on the ballot, although Congress in certifying the votes and results from the Electoral College, would have the last say if a legitimate question as to eligibility arose, but Congress didn’t act so again, the point is now moot and Obama’s SCOTUS picks, having been confirmed by congress, whether we like it or their decisions or not are not “illegitimate” just because you deem Obama to be a usuper in your non-legal and non-binding opinion.”
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. I have also proven that the eligibility requirements prohibit anyone who hasn't qualified from serving as a legal President. You need to offer proof that he did in fact qualify to Congress, something that to this date has gone unproven. No qualification, no legal President. Who did he qualify to and when?
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.