1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution (that both parents must be citizens of USA) co-authored by BHO.

4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

5. Since the fact of BHO’s dad being Kenyan/British not in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

ANSWER TO ABOVE CHALLENGE

IF, when counting the electoral votes, Congress WERE TO find by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American) — fails to qualify as President, Biden would become the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE SUPREME COURT to enjoin Obama’s inauguration relegating Biden to being merely Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President were duly determined.

(The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.)

Obviously, you are not a lawyer – not a good one anyway. Not even an acceptable one.

I’ve made my point about Reid having the constitutionally protected right to a court decision on the senate’s right to reject Burris as an unqualified appointment. Whether the courts agree are another thing altogether – but I find it amazing how many of you know-it-all’s only see access to the courts as a right when it suits you.

Now what I am going to enjoy is this next part.

You’ve tossed a verbal insult and then run for cover. That would be the standard cowardly blogger “wimp out” line “I’ve had my say and now I’m going to bed.”

Okay. I’ve had my say backacha. Oh pooh. There you are reading it and having to pretend you’re still zzzzzing under the covers because we all know you are just tooo intellectually above it all to answer.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Go back and read the Constitution again. Begin by reading Amendment XVll. This gives sole authority to the Governor. Blago is still the legal governor of Ill. and it is his duty to fill the senate seat and he has. There is nothing in Roland Burris’ record to prevent his being seated. It is only because Harry Reid wanted a stacked deck and Blago called his hand, that he is acting like a spoiled child and interfering with a legally elected governor performing his duty. I hold no brief for Blago, but the Constitution is the glue that holds this nation together and when we start spitting on it the way you are advocating we are all on a slippery slope to chaos.

I am going to bed now, so don’t expect another little round of the game you have been playing.

I don’t know how “truthtelling007″ had as much patience with you as he/she did. You’ve had your 15 minutes of fame, now please shut up and let other people have a go at this thread.

You seem to be all riled up because actions are being taken before the case against Blago is adjudicated but you apparently have no problem denying Reid his right to adjudication of a contested constitutional issue.

Now that’s cloudy logic.

(Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.)

“Go ahead, call me sheeple, I love it when you’re better than me anyway.”

Oh dear. I really thought we were matching each other pretty good on the high-handed attitude – but I wasn’t taking it personally. Hmmm.

And you talk about where the logic is?
What is legally disputed about this appointment?
Don’t give me “clouds” and such.

Look, I think Blogojevich is a crook. But without being adjudicated, he’s still legally innocent. And Burris is legally qualified.

SO what are you talking about “legally disputed”?

“Who gives a crap about upholding the law?”
Well, apparently not you if you advocate Reid blocking this appointment.

Go ahead, call me sheeple, I love it when you’re better than me anyway.

It is a remarkable moment in Senate history indeed. But Reid is full of shit.
Show me in the Constitution where this appointment can be blocked by Reid…I’d love to see that.
(hint: Article 1, section 5, is closest you’ll get)

I’m saying that there is sufficient disagreement about the law to warrant court intervention in the decision.
For example, you seem to believe that the word “qualifications” in Article 5 is limited to the age, citizenship, residence and appointment requirements in the Constitution. This view was upheld in Powell v. McCormack. While that decision would hold some weight as a legal precedent, it is not written in stone.

Allowing this appointment to stand under the suspect circumstances may set a legal political precedent that outweighs the Powell decision. Who knows?

At the very least, I feel it best to have the matter processed through the courts where minds more legal than mine, and more objective (supposedly) than Blago’s and Reid’s, can ponder and decide.

And further, we know Blago had the added vengeful appeal of sticking it in the eye of the government – and he purposefully complicated it by chosing a black man.

Now, the Senate has the constitution right to reject an appointment if it is deemed to be an unjust appointment. Just how unjust does an appointment need to be in your book to qualify for rejection?

Perception is everything and Reid should realize that this is being perceived wrong.

It amuses me how touchy people get whenever the subjecto of race and racism comes up. I think this is a wonderful opportunity of ‘turn about fair play.’ The way the Clintons were labeled racist for NO REASON. Well, it’s time those who stood silent get a taste of their own medicine.

I simply adore the idea of that. Maybe if Reid and others do, there will be at last some settling of how wrong it is to level these charges unfairly.

Certainly if there is blatant discrimination it should be addressed, but the race card during this last election cycle was played irresponsibly.

So if it takes Reid being skewered the way Bill and Hillary were, so be it.

I don’t have a problem with that.

Let it roll!

Now…could you please tell me where the Constitution allows this? You just said, if it does, then self-affirmed. Please…explain what provision in Article 1 of the Constitution allows Harry Reid to refuse this appointment

The closest comment in Article one is in Section 5 which states:
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”

However, the qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution and none says, “and can’t be appointed by a corrupt, potentially corrupt, accused of corruption Governor.

The only cases I know about are John Henry Eaton and Rush Holt, both of which centered around their age qualification.

That’s it…if you have more info…fill us in.