Senator kicked out of senate on Quo WaRRANTO
Posted on | July 12, 2009 | 5 Comments
Posted on another forum.
On December 2, 1793, Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania took the oath of office in the Senate. His eligibility was then challenged on the grounds that he did not meet the minimum nine years of citizenship as constitutionally required for Senators ( https://tinyurl.com/mkru86 ). This appears to be the first eligibility case in the Senate.
On February 10, 1794, the Committee of Elections reported on testimony. It was sworn that Mr. Gallatin said that he had “‘not been a citizen long enough'” to be a Senator, but after being nominated, Mr. Gallatin “said that he had made this declaration under a mistaken idea that it was necessary for him to have been nine years a citizen of Pennsylvania, but that, upon examining the Constitution, he had found that to have been nine years a citizen of the United States was sufficient”. It was also sworn that, “a considerable time subsequent to Mr. Gallatin’s election”, Mr. Gallatin said “something with respect to the laws of Massachusetts not requiring an oath of allegiance” but that “he took the oath of allegiance in Virginia” ( https://tinyurl.com/n3qeb4 ).
Mr. Gallatin declined to produce any evidence unless the Senate decided against him. The Committee of Elections then concluded by the evidence that it was incumbent on Mr. Gallatin to show that he became a citizen of the United States ( https://tinyurl.com/lrj5re ).
On February 20, 1794, Mr. Gallatin produced a statement of facts. He was born in Geneva in 1761 and arrived in Massachusetts in 1780. He started living in Virginia in November 1783. He took the oath of allegiance in Virginia in October 1785 ( https://tinyurl.com/lrj5re ). Yet, Albert Gallatin claimed that he became a citizen “from the time of his first qualifying after his arrival and attachment to the country” ( https://tinyurl.com/lv3yru ).
On February 28, 1794, the Senate resolved that the election of Albert Gallatin was void since he did not meet the nine-year minimum citizenship requirement ( https://tinyurl.com/nt3lpc ). “Gallatin was removed in a party-line vote of 14–12″ ( https://tinyurl.com/msm86b ).
Albert Gallatin’s citizenship was challenged, and the evidence seemed to prove that he was not eligible for office, even if he truly believed otherwise. Yet, politics played a role in the voting to remove him from the Senate. Obama is ineligible since he is not a “natural born Citizen”. Maybe he can be removed, too.
Comments
5 Responses to “Senator kicked out of senate on Quo WaRRANTO”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
July 12th, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Keeping my fingers and toes crossed that the Nobama, american hater will be removed either on ineligibility, fraud, treason or corruption. There is enough dirt on him to take him down one way or another. If the eligibility issue doesnt work then Orly or others can challenge him on lying, fraud, treason, being a traitor, corruption and the list goes on and on and on.
July 12th, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Maybe he can be removed? He had better be removed! He is guilty of fraud, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
July 12th, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
What astound’s me is the 14 yays-12nays vote, when it
was actually” stated by Gallatin that he did not
think he was eligible.
Nine years a citizen is the Law. The vote should have
been 26 – 0. The persons who voted nay were trying to
put a “ineligible” candidate in Office as a Senator.
They should have been investigated as traitor’s to
Our Constitution.
Why is it that “people” who Swore
an Oath to protect Our Constitution think they can
just change it by voting against the rules whenever
they feel it would fit their needs.
Gallatin should never have been a candidate to begin
with. They all knew it. They ignored the rules on purpose,
with hope’s of “voting” him in for their own reason’s.
What would have happened if Gallatin was allowed to
be Senator…
July 13th, 2009 @ 12:11 am
Well, that was encouraging to read! At least we know it’s been done before! Thanks for sharing it. Kate~
July 13th, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
It’s worth pointing out that Gallatin was not really removed from the Senate because he was from Geneva, or that he was just shy of the requirement of how long a person must be from a state to represent it in the Senate. Albert Gallatin represented, and sympathized with, the part of the nascent country that had been responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion against Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Much as they would later, when Thomas Jefferson added Gallatin to his government as Secretary of Treasury, the Federalists cried foul on Gallatin’s ascent to a position of power. However, unlike this later position, the Federalists had a loophole in their favor – the residency requirement.
So they removed a perfectly qualified, even capable politician from his democratically-elected position on a technicality. Was that your point?