Replies

The secretaries of State have the responsibility to place qualified candidates on the ballot. ST thinks that means they can't see the birth certificate because the constitution doesn't specificallt mention that. So she assumes that the founders intended to not have the clauses of the constitution enforced without more laws to describe methodology for each.

You must allow an A for persistence despite it being explained to here by half a dozen or more posters.

My earlier question is where in the constitution does it autorize the president to transfer troops by plane? ST cannot answer that simple question.

Well, you know I showed you this before, but for the benefit of “Sibre Fan”, I’ll give it here for him, in regards to what you were saying...

It’s a slight bit different that you say. I mean by that... the Constitution says what the candidate must *be* and then it’s up to the officials to carry out the “methodology” of determining that.

Now, the conflict here is that people here have said that they want a “methodology” of “seeing the birth certificate” while the officials have simply (and with all candidates in the past) had them sign and swear an oath they are *are* what the Constitution says that they must *be* — and that is their “methodology”...

The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...

And here’s the Constitution for you...., the *basics* of the Constitution on this qualifications issue...

And yes, there is a Constitution, it’s to follow — and here is what it says, in regards to qualifications. The Constitution says that a candidate must be the following in order to qualify for the office. The candidate must ...

*be* 35 years or older
*be* a resident 14 years or more
*be* a natural born citizen

And Obama has sworn under oath that he *is* (as the Constitution says he must *be*)...

It does not say what is necessary to show it, prove it or what any means for “vetting” is. That’s up to the states themselves to vet and make sure that the candidates meet the qualifications.

And what they have done is sworn an oath that they are qualified..., Obama has, the other candidates have and they have in the past...

—

And in addition the State of Hawaii says that he *is* exactly what the Constitution says he must *be*...

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

This shows that there is no Constitutional issue or question. So, when there is no Constitutional issue at problem here with the Qualifications for office, why would the Supreme Court get involved? Which is why they didn’t get involved.

—

And if you want to get Obama to show his birth certificate, you’re going to have to get a state law to that effect, which is what I’ve been proposing since the election.

And you’ll notice that no one is saying to ignore the Constitution...

Also, you’ll note this is what I said in post #5904, in regards to my current position...

Well, I’ve got a pretty basic position mapped out for myself. It breaks down into three areas...

(1) I’m going to go by the official Hawaii pronouncement, unless something solid comes up (in a court of law) that disproves it.
(2) Since everyone wants to see the birth certificate, I’m going to continue to work for enacting a state law for that purpose (Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Azrizona already working on it).
(3) The issue of natural born, as far as parents and their citizenship, I’m going to let the Supreme Court decide on it and I’ll take their decision.

That’s where it boils down for me right now...