To date, I have seen no constitutional verbiage nor federal law that specifically says that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility (versus, of course, impeachment).

Here’s the most recent ruling from a Federal Court on the matter:

[O]n the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in theT wenty-Fifth Amendment…. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.

Barnett v. Obama, “Order regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, at pp. 24-25; see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD

If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
You’re okay with that??
Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.
___________________________________________________________________
Wow, a entire post filled with speculation and no facts. That was impressive. Let us address some points. First of all can you show us some legally admissible proof that President Obama ever changed his name to Soetero or was adopted? And we don’t mean the unsourced “Indonesian school record”. That is not considered proof. Secondly can you show us where the President spent “millions of our tax dollars” hiding his documents? I mean yo were so specific so you must have proof? Since Obama is the President, the DOJ is defending him in these ridiculous lawsuits. And the so called documents are all protected by federal privacy laws. Now if you want to change the privacy laws so that anyone can look at your personal records, then do that. The only waste of taxpayer money is all of the time the courts have to waste with these frivolous lawsuits by Orly, Apuzzo, and Berg. Leo never had the guts to actually file one so he is not in the same category as the others. And of course the biggest lie is that your parental citizenship status matters in determining whether or not you are a natural born citizen. That has never been the case and is currently not the case. That was a birther invention from some Swiss philospher. Not the US Constitution and definately not SCOTUS rulings. Thanks to the Wong ruling, we know that is not the case. Sorry. The President was born in HI, so he is a natural born citizen.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..” US Constitution 14th Amendment

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?

and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…

OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS

SENATE RESOLUTION 511
______________________________________________________________________________
First of all the Senate resolution also said that you had to be born in Panama in 1936 but I see you of course forget to mention that part of the resolution. So that means that no one other than McCain is eligible to be President.

Subject to the jurisdiction of does NOT mean sole allegiance. It means that being born in the US means that you are subject to its jurisdiction by virture of being a citizen of the country.

Chester A Authur’s father’s status was known at the time. There are writings that show that.

Regardless of what Bingham may have said, AG Bates said different as shown in my quote. Also the Wong Kim Ark ruling was in 1896, which came after the 14th amendment, is the case regarding citizenship.

So overall you have been proven wrong. But you knew you would be. Hence the name calling. I guess when your argument makes no sense, like yours, you need to distract by calling names. Which is the usual birther M.O.

*You’re okay with that??*

Yes, I am OK with any child born in America except the child of a diplomat no matter the status of his parents be eligible to be President. The primary process would weed out someone like the child of Ahmadinijad. If you think Obama is really named Soetoro, don’t vote for him in 2012. If you don’t think a child born in Hawaii and who has spent 44 of his 48 years living in the US is eligible, don’t vote for him. If you don’t like the law, get your senator to propose a Constitutional amendment on eligibility. But don’t try to force your views on the majority who think you’re nuts.

If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
You’re okay with that??
Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.

No more answers for you. You bore me.

If you actually read the 25th Amendment, you would know that it is clearly addressed only to situations where the President is “unable” to fill his duties, in the case of mental or physical disability. It is NOT a way to test the President’s qualifications to hold office — it IS a way to act in the event that there is a President who suffers a debilitating stroke, or Alzheimer’s, or who lapses into a coma.

“Fail to qualify” is NOT the same as “unable to discharge the powers and duties”.

Sounds to me like an issue of a difference of opinion. Has SCOTUS ruled in your favor somewhere in determining the precise and exact scope of the 25th Amendment with respect to presidential eligibility?

Congress determined (without objection) on January 8th that Barack Obama was qualified. (It’s an either/or proposition — if they had not made that determination, they could not have designated him President). THAT determination cannot be revisited.

Actually, the question regarding objections was never raised as it had been in previous Joint Sessions, so I’m not completely sure what you’re talking about in the first part of your pulled comment.

Secondly, we are apparently going to have to agree to disagree that “THAT determination (sic.) cannot be revisited.” To date, I have seen no constitutional verbiage nor federal law that specifically says that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility (versus, of course, impeachment).

-Phil

Phil surmised:

Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.

No, Phil, the truth is that the Constitution provides one, and only one, avenue for determining the issue of eligibility — and that is at the joint session, as outlined in Article II and the 12th and 20th Amendment.

There is NO OTHER mechanism after the electoral college has voted. Under the Constitution, Congress is REQUIRED TO certify the candidate with the most electoral votes as President, UNLESS they find that he is unqualified. Once they certify — there is no mechanism to challenge or question that determination.

Again, I think we’re talking about two distinctly different issues here — one of eligibility and one of impeachment. Further, to date, I’m pretty sure that the American republic has never actually had to deal with an ineligible President who was found to be such either before or during his term.

But even if we are to consider this argument to the fullest, the bottom line is that the Constitution only ever states that Congress has the “sole” power to impeach; it does not say that Congress has the “sole” power to determine eligibility.

Rather than try to build your argument on what the Constitution clearly does not say — why don’t you explain your rationale and specify the legal or Constitutional authority for your own belief?

Quite simply, where the Constitution is silent, I believe that this means that the federal government is to be silent in that respect and refer to the Bill of Rights, or, more specifically, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Of course, this observation of mine is of a general nature. Specifically regarding eligibility, if the Constitution does not give Congress the sole power of determining eligibility, then, clearly, Congress does not have that power. It would be precisely the same as saying that while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, Congress should step in to speech of any sort if it offends someone.

As I believe “jvn” recently made comment, the Constitution similarly does not spell out the ingredients for Coca-Cola (or some such legitimate analogy). Therefore, we can clearly surmise that this is subsequently not a federal issue but one that is left to the States or the People thereof.

So far, every birther lawsuit has been thrown out of court on jurisdictional grounds. It’s going to keep right on happening, perhaps with a few more Judges stepping up to the plate and imposing big money sanctions on the idiots with law degrees who insist on wasting their time with frivolous law suits.

Yeah, and?

-Phil

[...] Phil, I am worried about you…I check back in on you and it seems like this site is a mess. [...]

Jenni, “get in their face is the answer”, and you know this very well.
The site is not exactly a mess, yet it is under constant assault by a swarm of Obamatrolls who are willing to go at any lengths to push any issue or discussion re Obama to irrelevancy -

The comments section of any site has two functions:
1) debate the article in cause,
2) a posting bord for additional, pertinent information

… and if you check, you will see that on this site the trolls in cause don’t constructively debate issues, all what they do is building assaults of circuitous arguments and jam the thread ad nauseam, trying to push the issue to death – again and again, again and again, like some broken records -

As any trolling operation, while what’s happening here can be irritating, it also is counterproductive:
1) the trolls convince none -
2) but, as the curent article well shows, these trolls sure confirm that anything related with Obama is fraudulent and malevolent, fact that is quite motivating for further digging in Obama’s obscure past -

While you acknowledged that you are a liberal (unfortunately, for so many a self-incrimination declaration), I hope you don’t really have an Obamaton’s flawed nature and ways –

Best regards -

The 25th Amendment provides an alternative way to remove a President, in the event of incapacity, which also requires concurrence of 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

Clearly, “the event of incapacity” is not solely restricted to the time of a General Election; it can happen at any time, which was precisely my point.

Also, I’m not addressing impeachment at this time; I was merely challenging you on your claim that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to determine eligibility, when clearly you have admitted that it is not.

If you actually read the 25th Amendment, you would know that it is clearly addressed only to situations where the President is “unable” to fill his duties, in the case of mental or physical disability. It is NOT a way to test the President’s qualifications to hold office — it IS a way to act in the event that there is a President who suffers a debilitating stroke, or Alzheimer’s, or who lapses into a coma.

“Fail to qualify” is NOT the same as “unable to discharge the powers and duties”.

Congress determined (without objection) on January 8th that Barack Obama was qualified. (It’s an either/or proposition — if they had not made that determination, they could not have designated him President). THAT determination cannot be revisited.

“David finally gets it!!!”

Actually, I think it is YOU who has finally comprehended my original point – at least in part. Congratulations nonetheless.

However, you missed the part where I also stated that disseminating information about one’s past that has been kept from the public – i.e., records, associates, etc. – is crucial to knowing and understanding a candidate running for federal office. If we don’t know about people, we can’t make proper and rational judgments. If we can’t make proper judgments about our leaders in the federal government, then we put ourselves at risk for failure and ruin.

Now, I suppose I’ll wait another six days and countless more comments for you to finally grasp that.

Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.

No, Phil, the truth is that the Constitution provides one, and only one, avenue for determining the issue of eligibility — and that is at the joint session, as outlined in Article II and the 12th and 20th Amendment.

There is NO OTHER mechanism after the electoral college has voted. Under the Constitution, Congress is REQUIRED TO certify the candidate with the most electoral votes as President, UNLESS they find that he is unqualified. Once they certify — there is no mechanism to challenge or question that determination.

Rather than try to build your argument on what the Constitution clearly does not say — why don’t you explain your rationale and specify the legal or Constitutional authority for your own belief?

So far, every birther lawsuit has been thrown out of court on jurisdictional grounds. It’s going to keep right on happening, perhaps with a few more Judges stepping up to the plate and imposing big money sanctions on the idiots with law degrees who insist on wasting their time with frivolous law suits.

Phil:

Can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where it is specifically stated that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility?

The Constitution does not concern itself with trivia. You will not find the recipe for Coke Classic within it, nor the definition of “lugubrious,” nor the elevation of Mt. Whitney, nor the proper way of poaching an egg.

And you will not find in it the vast corpus of American law either common or statutory.

Excellent. Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.

Anybody can question anything. But only some people can actually act on what is questioned.

The Constitution reserves to the Congress sole power to remove a President.

Again, excellent, regarding the impeachment question. However, that’s not been my question.

-Phil

Phil, I am worried about you…I check back in on you and it seems like this site is a mess. While I never agreed with you politically, I must say you ran one of the better RW sites and I took a lot of information from your site in writing my paper.

If the site is a “mess,” that would be based on the quality of comments being bandied about. I can assure you that the postings continue to be of bodaciously kewl quality.

You’re using portions of my site for writing your paper? Wow. Nice effect. Hopefully you’ve properly sourced it

What is going on? Slow updates, all this in-fighting. Where is a nice liberal girl to go for the RW viewpoint? Please don’t make me go to Citizen Wells or one of the really crazy places !!!! Wake up, Phil!!!!

Yes, it is true — my life is temporarily exceptionally busy for the time being, so the site is not as updated as frequently. But hey — at least the comments don’t require me to always moderate them to be public.

“In-fighting?” Don’t you mean, “vehement, robust discussion?” That’s been going on since long before you took a break from my site.

-Phil