| TWO Citizen Parents |
| Why does it require two
citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring
two US citizen parents? Policy as used with regards to the drafting
of laws is a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern.
What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Leo Donofrio addresses why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen.(link no longer functional) |
| Even Wikipedia |
| Even Wikipedia gets
it right: "It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president..." Two American parents and on American soil -- simple as that. |
| State Department On Dual Nationality |
| The U. S. State
Department defines the concept of dual nationality
as meaning that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same
time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own
policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of
different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a
foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a
citizen of the country of birth. A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship. And that's why the Founders included Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in The U. S. Constitution. |
| Conclusion |
| It should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate
the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, 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". Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully. |
| A Question Of Allegiance |
| The supreme law of the United
States of America is the Constitution and Amendments thereto.
Everything else is subordinated to the Articles of the Constitution, which
is why the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is virtually
powerless to remove any usurper in unlawful occupation of the Office of
the President as the court of original jurisdiction. The Founding
Fathers wrote the Constitution giving Congress the sole authority to
inaugurate and remove a President and Vice President to the
Congress. Congress in turn subsequently authorized by Public Law and
statute for the Supreme Court to establish an inferior court, the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia, to be the only Federal with
jurisdiction for the removal of Federal Public Officers, which includes
the President of the United States (POTUS). With respect to questions about a "citizen" versus a "natural born citizen," The Articles of the Constitution are superior to and take precedence over anything Congress enacts as a Public Law and statute in the U.S. Code and anything the Supreme Court and inferior courts hold as their decisions. This is what is meant by the impropriety of legislating from the bench. The only lawful means of changing and altering the Constitution is for Congress to lawfully enact an Amendment to the Constitution. Since the "natural born citizen" phrase is a provision of the Constitution, no Public Law or statute can lawfully change the meaning of the phrase as it was stated in the Constitution without an Amendment doing so. At the time the Constitution was adopted, it did not include any provisions to determine the requirements for being a citizen of the United States, because each State was already responsible for enacting their own State Constitutions and state laws and statutes governing natural born and naturalized citizenship in the State. Whosoever was a citizen of a State was thereby also a citizen of the United States of America. This circumstance arose as a consequence of the sequence of events occutring during the American Revolutionary War. Upon adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Congress on 4 July 1776, the preceding English or British common-law governing citizenship was abolished. Since the States in the Continental Congress had not yet formed a national government, each State was responsible for the task of replacing the former British legal codes and common-law by enacting its own state Public Laws. The adoption of the Articles of Confederation and later adoption of the Constitution resulted in many important changes, but Congress continued to respect the power of each State to enact its own citizenship laws in the State constitution and/or public laws and statures of the state. As a result, the qualifications for natural born and naturalized citizenship were sometimes different from one State to the next. The statutory laws of some States continued the previous common-law in part before changing it altogether at a later date, while other Sates adopted little or none of the previous common-law in their new statutory law. Uniform national laws and statutes regarding citizenship and naturalization were not established by the federal Government of the United States until the mid-19th Century. Consequently, the qualifications and methods for determining who was a natural born citizen with allegiance only to the United States was determined by state constitutions and or state laws or statutes governing who was a natural born citizen of the State during the Early Republic. In every circumstance, however, a person could be natural born with one and only one allegiance and attendant citizenship to a sovereign government. Dual citizenship was not recognized. What created a conflict, however, was the establishment of the Federal uniform citizenship and naturalization statutory laws which began to confer U.S. citizenship upon persons who were previously ineligible due to the dual citizenship. The Founding Fathers included the "natural born citizen" phrase in the Constitution for the stated purpose of excluding any person natural born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government from being eligible to the Office of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the American Army, responsible for protecting the Constitution and Citizens of the Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Dual citizenship was not recognized in the Law of Nations at the time the Constitution was adopted, so a person could be born with allegiance and therefore citizenship to only one sovereign and nation. When the Law of Nations and the Federal statutory laws were changed to begin recognition of dual and multiple citizenship status, a potential conflict was created with the original "natural born citizen" phrase in the Constitution. Absent an Amendment to the Constitution which specifically changes the "natural born citizen" phrase and its purpose as stated by the Founding Fathers, previous Supreme Court decisions demand that the phrase and its intended purpose take precedence as superior law over any Federal statutory law, state constitution, state law, or Supreme Court case law. Consequently, who was and was not a natural born citizen was and still may be determined by state constitutional law, state statutory law, Federal statutory law, and Federal case law as determined by Congress; but it may only do so to the extent it gives effect to the Founding Fathers’ intent and Constitutional phrase to make a person eligible to the Office of the President who is a natural born citizen as it existed at the adoption of the Constitution, which did not admit any possible allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government at birth. |
| Obama Continues To Be A British Subject |
| Attorney Mario Apuzzo sys
that assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only
born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at
present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on
citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an
argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for
each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and
one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be
better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S.
citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even
though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a
citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned
the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship
by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great
Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United
States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British
law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British
citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today. The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows: "4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth: Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth— (a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy. 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...." Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4. Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time. Continue reading here . . . |
| Born Subject To A Foreign Power |
| Attorney Mario Apuzzo believes that being born subject to a
foreign power, Obama cannot be President and Military Commander. Having just won a revolution, the Founders were faced with constituting a new nation. Under the constitutional plan devised by the Founders, they had to identify who were the members of the new nation. They called these members "citizens" of the United States. Thus, they created our first generation of United States "citizens." These persons were either born abroad or in the British colonies before July 4, 1776 or abroad or in the new States thereafter, but in all cases inhabited one of the colonies or States and were loyal to the American revolution. The Founders under Article II grandfathered these original "citizens" to be eligible to be President. Under this plan, once the new nation had its first generation "citizens," it was placed in position to have in the future its Article II "natural born Citizens," who would be born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution and descend from mothers and fathers who were both original "citizens." Given that America was already a land of immigrants and that the Founders expected that many more immigrants would come to its shores in search of a new life and to share in its vast resources, they gave Congress in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 the power to naturalize aliens and thereby create more future first generation United States "citizens." Having become a naturalized "citizen," one would then be in a position to procreate with another "citizen" (born or similarly naturalized) a "natural born Citizen" who would be eligible to be president. Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a "natural born Citizen." As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a "natural born Citizen." It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent generation "citizens" who are "natural born Citizens." They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens. On the other hand, throughout our history, there have been doubts and disputes as to who may be a born "citizen" (as distinguished from a "natural born Citizen" or a naturalized citizen). These disputes have concerned the question of whether to be a "citizen," must a child be simply born on U.S. soil and be subject to its jurisdiction, without any reference to the citizenship of the parents (jus soli which follows the old English common law), or must that child also be born to U.S. citizen parents (jus soli and jus sanguinis united which follows the law of nations’ definition and which any way only applies to "natural born citizens"). This dispute has concerned the question of whether we should declare a child a first generation "citizen" (in effect having the same status as one of the original first generation "citizens" which Article II grandfathered to be eligible to be President). The dispute has not been with whether we should declare that child a subsequent generation "natural born Citizen." The Fourteenth Amendment settled who could be a "citizen" by bestowing such status upon those born in the United States or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. "Citizens" who meet this Fourteenth Amendment definition can be either first or subsequent generation United States "citizens." If first generation, they are simply "citizens." If subsequent generation, they are not only "citizens" but also "natural born Citizens." Congress has also declared who may be a born "citizen" through legislation and has thereby not only confirmed what is already stated in the Fourteenth Amendment but has also granted citizenship to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (one or two). Senator McCain, being born in Panama, falls into the two United States-parent category. The question of whether foreign-born children, born to two United States parents and thus falling in this category (by definition they would be subsequent generation "citizens" but not born in the United States) are "natural born Citizens" has not been resolved by any Court. If such a child were born to just one United States citizen parent, he or she would not only acquire the allegiance and loyalty of the nation on whose soil he or she may be born but also that of his or her foreign parent’s nation and thereby further compromise his or her claim for "natural born Citizen" status. A study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship. Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen," for he was born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain. The best that Obama can be is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen," assuming that he was born in the United States and assuming that one born subject to a foreign power can also be born subject to the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States. In such a case, he would be a subsequent generation "citizen" through his American mother but only a first generation "citizen" because of his foreign father. If Obama was not born in the United States or if being born in the United States he was not born subject to its jurisdiction, then he is not even a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment or any applicable Congressional Act. Hence, we can see that Obama is missing the mandatory Article II constitutional status of being at a minimum a second generation "citizen" through both a citizen mother and citizen father. What creates further allegiance and loyalty problems for Obama is that his birthright British citizenship, which continues in effect until today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21 or 23. Being 47 years old when he was elected, just his Kenyan allegiance and loyalty occupied him for almost one-half of his then life span. It is Obama’s being only a first generation U.S. citizen because of his father not being a United States citizen at Obama’s birth that caused his divided allegiance and loyalty at birth (United States v. British and Kenyan) and disqualifies him to be President and Commander in Chief. It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty to Great Britain (which continues until today), which then converted to allegiance and loyalty to Kenya. It does not matter that his mother was a United States citizen because at birth Obama inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power (Great Britain) from his father just as he would have inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power if born to parents who were both non-United States citizens. By Obama’s mother being a United States citizen at his birth, Obama was just spared acquiring even another foreign allegiance and loyalty. Just like a naturalized citizen who -- despite taking an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances and loyalties and which incidentally Obama has never done -- cannot be President because he or she is born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, Obama, born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, also cannot be President. All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. |
| The Biggest Cover-Up In American History |
|
In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of
the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States
v. Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we
have examined the subject matter further.
We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will
be essential to have an understanding of the place that the concepts of
“Natural Law” and the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run
up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of
natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend
and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain.
Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation
clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and its
relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations. When you have finished
studying our research you will also understand that these terms were used
in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in
the constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as
the Constitutional Convention was in session.
This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the
1787 Constitutional Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen”
in the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President of our
nation and what it truly means.
In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein
Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President
of the United States.
Read this argument here . . .
By: Amil Imani with James H.
Hyde
|
| All Ineligible |
| All
three of the 2008 presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain,
and Calero were not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the
U.S. Constitution to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008. Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the 2008 presidential election and its results should be voided. Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a legal fact that can not be disputed. Obama has only one US citizen parent. His father was British subject and a Citizen of Kenya -- as was Obama. McCain was not born in the mainland US. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936. Calero was not born in the mainland US. He was born in Nicaragua. |
| Democrats Try To Change The Rules |
|
On February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a
bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S.
2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The
bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn
(R-OK).
Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of
the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements
of being a "natural born citizen" and hence; the entitlement to run for
President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that
similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past.
Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed
and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy
left, that only the most curious public can find.
Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal
counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section
1 and requires clarification. But does
it?
|
| Senate Judicial Committee Chairman Says Obama Not Eligible -- And Obama Agrees |
| On April 10, 2008, Sens.
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced Senate
Resolution 511 expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that
presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born
Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for
president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s
why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen.
John McCain's cause. It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement: "Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate." At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,"Chertoff replied. "That is mine, too," said Leahy. What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents. Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents. Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case. It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace. Obama had one American parent --singular -- his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain. Obama, himself, "at birth," was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a fact that further underlines Obama's ineligibility. The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff's testimony. The plural word "parents" is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used five times. That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used.
Note: Leahy has scrubbed the above referenced document from
his official Senate website, but guess what? I've been on top of
these criminals for years -- here's my archived copy. Now why would a sitting senator scrub a bill he sponsored
from his own website?
If
you go to this scumbag's Senate website and enter "S. R. 511" into the
"Search" textbox you get and error message:
"We're
sorry. The page you requested cannot be found."
Sen. Patrick Leahy is one of the principal conspirators and should be impeached, tried and jailed. Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (Jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was born. Obama is a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah. Rules don't apply to him. |
| 35 Or 36 |
| Since the 1870s, assorted
Congress critters have attempted to define or redefine "natural
born" citizen status nearly 30 times! There were five attempts to re-define "natural born" citizen status since 2001 -- that's six attempts, if you include Sen. Leahy's Resolution for McCain in March 2008. |
| Rule Of Law |
|
All U. S. military personal and every other American under oath to
protect and defend the U. S. Constitution will be duty bound to remove the
fraudulent usurper. This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors,
media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions,
supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or
any other documents -- Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE The US President.
No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama II, to be a natural born United States citizen. Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the U. S. because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a subject of Great Britain and a citizen of Kenya. He was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed under Section 32(1) of the The British Nationality Act of 1948. Even the Obots at FactCheck.org, confirm the British Actgoverned Obama's status until he was 21 years of age.
Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who
possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their
Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan
citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a
resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were
over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the
Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in
late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was
born.
Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is
irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant.
Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or
inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Obama to
be put in the office of U. S. President by any means or reason.
Obama is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING that Obama would ever do in the office of U. S. President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL. |
| The Electoral College Meets |
|
From the National Archives for the U.S. Electoral
College:
The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint
session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009 to conduct the
official tally of electoral votes.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding
officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes
of the States in alphabetical order.
The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and
declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice
President of the United States. The results are entered into the official
journals of the House and Senate.
The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be
made.
(...also referenced by Cornell
University Law School, and likely all authorities and credible educational
institutions who reference historical fact.)
If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing
and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House
and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the
merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C.
section 15."
Most unfortunately, the above did not happen, the call was not
made, as documented in this video of the actual
event.
|
| The Facts Don't Lie |
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to
be President of the United
States, the Facts Don't
Lie!WE LET A FAUX TAKE US DOWN
|
No comments:
Post a Comment