Jan 19, 2012

"Done deal" defense for Obama's ineligibility case.

Source:  http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
Excerpt:  Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing
'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates'
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
My comment:
In short, he's saying he earned the right to be president because he was able to fool those folks and work the system.  And once he's been made, then no one can unmake him - despite the overwhelming evidence, despite the truth and the reality.

If we can take a page from the Catholic sacrament playbook, we can use the analogy of marriage and the impediments to it.  If someone is still married, he cannot remarry period.  So, if someone lies and goes through the ceremony, his marriage is invalid.  It is null and void.  He is incapable of contracting marraige because of that impediment.

The qualifications for the presidency are clearly defined in the Constitution.  So, if Obama is not qualified then he is not qualified regardless of who says so.  If someone who is ineligible has been elected, then that election does not make him eligible because, he cannot even run for the office to begin with.  Obama is barred from even participating.  So, his election is null and void by virtue of the highest law in the land.

Unless they amend the Constitution to say that the electoral college can exempt a candidate from the eligibility requirements, the his defense is lame and even shameful.  What will that say about us as a nation?  If we can cheat and win, then that's OK?  If we can bribe and fool the electoral college, then the States who form the union should just suck it up?  No way Jose.

So, we clearly have a usurper to the executive office.  How long will he stay?  If we got away with cheating to be elected, he can get away with cheating to stay in power.  And that I think is why gun sales are up.

No comments:

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Blog Archive