Posted on 06/25/2008 9:34:08 AM PDT by ml/nj
I don't know. I'm asking. IANAL.
But it seems to me that there are quite a few problems or questions concerning how a legal challenge could be made to prevent a non-natural-citizen from assuming the Presidency. One of these problems is that Constitutionally at least, no one is actually a candidate for the Presidency. The people that we vote for in November are electors. To be sure, these electors are usually pledged to vote for a specific person, but legally the electors are not bound by their respective pledges. Sometime in December the electors vote in secret in their respective State capitals and then these votes are opened and tallied by Congress in January. So January seems to me the first time that a challenge could be made. Obviously the tallier of the votes could demand proof of natural citizenship and just not tally votes in the absence of such proof for someone receiving a vote or votes. But the tallier might not do that.
Usually in order to challenge something in a court one has to have "standing." My understanding is that in order to gain standing one has to claim some sort of damage. Maybe I'm wrong about this. But it would be hard for any individual to claim that he had been damaged by a non-natural-citizen who had assumed the Presidency, let alone such a person whose assumption would still be in the future.
Finally I assume that if someone did have standing to bring such a case, that the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction but of this I am by no means certain.
The Democrats seem to have a way of turning a process that has worked well for 200+ years into a circus. If Obama wins the election it would seem to me that he should be able to be forced to prove that he is eligible to assume the Presidency. I am wondering what course this process might take.
ML/NJ
I know there's a controversy regarding Obama’s birth certificate - I am not satisfied that he has provided an authentic one. Either he can't, or he's just trying to rope-a-dope Republicans into wasting time on a non-issue.
Bush haters overplayed their hand against Bush - they might just have won in 2004 if they had a less idiotic candidate and presented a rational alternative, rather than claiming Bush was “a liar” and “evil.” There was a lot of anti-war sentiment out there.
In any event, we all have to be careful to stick to relevant and/or provable criticisms of Obama. I'm still waiting for the “whitey” tape, and I suggest that perhaps all that time and effort spent speculating could have been better spent on something else.
Just my two cents. Flame away, all! :)
If that could happen, then the system is seriously broken.
Political parties are not constitutional entities; they can select their nominee any way they like, with whatever criteria they like.
But the general election is governed by the Constitution; it SHOULD be the case that the FEC certifies eligibility before putting anyone's name on the ballot.
Whether that's really the case or not; I cannot say.
I’ll bite: Where do you think he was born?
You’re barking up the wrong tree. If he was of foreign birth, HRC would have outed him early.
The states could refuse to put candidates on the ballot who do not document their qualifications to hold the office for which they are running. Considreing being a “natural born citizen” is a requirement for office, all candidates running for that office should have to document that they had US citizenship from birth. The secretaries of state of each of the 50 states should demand to receive certified copies of birth certificates of all candidates running for President of the United States.
Perhaps challenging eligibility in one or two states after the convention might flush out the truth early.
I think any American could go into Federal court and seek an injunction.
But I think that Obama was very likely born in Hawaii, and there’s something unpleasant on his birth certificate.
Thanks. I do think it’s a concern.
I agree, and the media will blow this out of proportion, acting as though this is the biggest issue republicans have with his campaign and the repubs are miserable, whiny screwballs making an issue out of nothing...There is so much low hanging fruit with him, that the issue of a birth certificate should be of very low importance, if at all. Do we really need to rely on a technicality? This makes it look as though we’re scared that he’ll win and grasping at straws to stop him.
The most troubling—i.e., “troubling”—thing I’ve seen on FR is this: the claim that since only Obama’s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, Obama would be a natural-born citizen ONLY if his mother had been living a minimum of ten years in the U.S., with a minumum of five of those years AFTER her sixteenth birthday. Since she was 18 when Obama was born, this seems like prima facie proof that Obama is not a natural-born citizen!
Note that the PLACE of Obama’s birth is irrelevant, according to this argument. The data that prove Obama NOT a natural-born citizen are already known with certainty: 1) his father was not a citizen; 2) his mother was 18 years old.
“Obviously the tallier of the votes could demand proof of natural citizenship and just not tally votes in the absence of such proof for someone receiving a vote or votes. But the tallier might not do that.”
I am not a lawyer either, but I would think the moment a candidate ‘qualifies’ to have his or her name placed on the November presidential ballot in a given state might be the appropriate moment to challenge a candidate’s right to be included on the presidential ballot in that state.
I don’t know, but I presume states might begin preparing the print layout and printing of ballots starting in September of an election year.
If there were to ever be a theoretical challenge, even assuming for the sake of argument BO is not constitutionally qualified, waiting till December would only throw the election to the House (presumably still democratic), which would select a democrat regardless.
“Obama would be a natural-born citizen ONLY if his mother had been living a minimum of ten years in the U.S., with a minumum of five of those years AFTER her sixteenth birthday. Since she was 18 when Obama was born, this seems like prima facie proof that Obama is not a natural-born citizen!”
I believe that only applies IF Obama was Not Born in the USA. According to the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. That includes the children of illegal aliens who are Not citizens.
The only way Obama could be disqualified on the basis that he is not a natural born citizen would be if he was not born in the US. Some have speculated that he may have been born in Kenya (British East Africa then) and that is why his certificate looks like it could be a fake.
The most troubling—i.e., “troubling”—thing I’ve seen on FR is this: the claim that since only Obama’s mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, Obama would be a natural-born citizen ONLY if his mother had been living a minimum of ten years in the U.S., with a minumum of five of those years AFTER her sixteenth birthday. Since she was 18 when Obama was born, this seems like prima facie proof that Obama is not a natural-born citizen!
Note that the PLACE of Obama’s birth is irrelevant, according to this argument. The data that prove Obama NOT a natural-born citizen are already known with certainty: 1) his father was not a citizen; 2) his mother was 18 years old.
This argument is incorrect, in that Obama’s place of birth is most certainly relevant. The provision that requires that the mother lived in the U.S. for 5 years after her sixteenth birthday applies only to people born outside of the US. For people born within the U.S., the 14th amendment is the relevant provision, and under that amendment, anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. So, in short, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a natural-born citizen and eligible; if Obama was not born in the U.S., he’s not a natural-born citizen, and is ineligible.
I suppose if the candidate were to use public funds for the campaign knowing he's ineligible, then a taxpayer could claim damage. However, Obama passed on public funding.
-PJ
They could. But they won't. Certainly not in time for the November election.
The Secretary of State in most states is responsible for determining eligibility for office. In the State of Washington they do not do this for major party Presidential candidates. A lawsuit could probably force them to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.