Tweet
An ineligible president costs congress its credibility
Coach is Right
Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
6/25/2012
Excerpt:
"A veritable war of words is erupting online between two commenters over what should be done about Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof. When one guy said words to the effect that we’re stuck with what we bought because “how could we justify being the most militarily powerful nation on earth if we don’t even bother to make sure the man in charge is legitimate,” another guy came back with keyboard keys blaring. He reminds his opponent that “There is an oath to support the Constitution in Article Six that all congressmen and senators take when entering office.” This was in answer to Commenter A, who said, “So in reality these congressmen ARE abiding by their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution since revealing the truth behind Obama would in fact undermine the sovereignty and security of the United States forever.” Commenter B cites original source and reminds A that the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, “requires that they (Congress) ensure that the President elect shall have qualified or they, Congress, are to name an interim President.”
FYI, here is the exact text ratified on January 23, 1933: “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 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.”
Keyboarder B asks the as yet unanswerable question: “How was Obama’s eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.” Now he centers his argumentation on “NO PERSON” which takes us back to the NBC clause, Article II, Sect. 1, Clause 5. “The eligibility requirements start out with [those] two simple words which forever preclude anyone who fails to qualify,” B proclaims. But A fires back with: “The answer is simple. We can’t undo what has been done. If we tell the world we ignored the safeguards of our own Constitution and put a man in charge of a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to kill everyone on earth, we as a nation will NEVER recover. . . we must maintain plausible deniability to the world.”
Commenter B comes back with a stunning close to their debate: “There is a credibility problem alright, one of this government with its own citizens.” Now that’s good, very good. A debate coach would give an A to B, right? Perhaps when Cold Case Investigator Mike Zullo said it’s all about the Rule of Law, he gave the best summation. So now will the detective gear up for the NBC question facing Mitt Romney? Was his father born in Mexico? Can he select Marco Rubio who was four when his parents naturalized?"
.........................
View the complete article at:
http://www.coachisright.com/an-ineli...s-credibility/
Coach is Right
Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
6/25/2012
Excerpt:
"A veritable war of words is erupting online between two commenters over what should be done about Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof. When one guy said words to the effect that we’re stuck with what we bought because “how could we justify being the most militarily powerful nation on earth if we don’t even bother to make sure the man in charge is legitimate,” another guy came back with keyboard keys blaring. He reminds his opponent that “There is an oath to support the Constitution in Article Six that all congressmen and senators take when entering office.” This was in answer to Commenter A, who said, “So in reality these congressmen ARE abiding by their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution since revealing the truth behind Obama would in fact undermine the sovereignty and security of the United States forever.” Commenter B cites original source and reminds A that the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, “requires that they (Congress) ensure that the President elect shall have qualified or they, Congress, are to name an interim President.”
FYI, here is the exact text ratified on January 23, 1933: “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 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.”
Keyboarder B asks the as yet unanswerable question: “How was Obama’s eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.” Now he centers his argumentation on “NO PERSON” which takes us back to the NBC clause, Article II, Sect. 1, Clause 5. “The eligibility requirements start out with [those] two simple words which forever preclude anyone who fails to qualify,” B proclaims. But A fires back with: “The answer is simple. We can’t undo what has been done. If we tell the world we ignored the safeguards of our own Constitution and put a man in charge of a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to kill everyone on earth, we as a nation will NEVER recover. . . we must maintain plausible deniability to the world.”
Commenter B comes back with a stunning close to their debate: “There is a credibility problem alright, one of this government with its own citizens.” Now that’s good, very good. A debate coach would give an A to B, right? Perhaps when Cold Case Investigator Mike Zullo said it’s all about the Rule of Law, he gave the best summation. So now will the detective gear up for the NBC question facing Mitt Romney? Was his father born in Mexico? Can he select Marco Rubio who was four when his parents naturalized?"
.........................
View the complete article at:
http://www.coachisright.com/an-ineli...s-credibility/