Posted on 01/02/2009 11:14:35 PM PST by Kevmo
Long-winded article, but I thought it was a good discussion of whose burden of proof it was -- the people's or the candidate's?
It’s also hearsay on his forged CoLB.
It's too bad that the author only limited his thinking to this final resort, although I do like the thinking around If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,…?”
However, what of the candidates before the election? Is waiting for a winner the only time to assess qualification? Can we not assess qualification when a candidate announces? What is the purpose of an "exploratory committee?" What is this committee exploring? To whom is it reporting the results of its exploration? Is a candidate's eligibility one of the things being explored?
What about if a candidate accepts federal funding? Is accepting federal funding when unqualified to be president a case for fraud?
What about if a candidate refuses federal funding? Does this remove the candidate from further federal scrutiny unless and until he wins? Is an unqualified candidate who accepts private donations also guilty of fraud?
Are the parties to be expected to provide proof of qualification of their candidates? What about write-in candidates or independent candidates who run without party sponsorship?
-PJ
I believe Al Gore’s immortal phrase “No controlling legal authority” comes to mind here.
None of the bodies that might exercise authority over this matter are willing to step up to the plate.
If no one is willing to enforce the law then, well, we can all ignore the law in the bright light of day.
No harm, no foul.
Good questions. I’m glad we have the 20th amendment. I note that this author zeroes in on that, which is what I’ve been doing lately.
I do detect that the entire social contract between the people & government is under question with this issue.
I'm guessing that these articles are being culled from all the thinking that has been posted here at Free Republic for the past two months.
-PJ
Like Pelosi would ask for proof!
To knock that down, someone has to come forward with their own evidence that he isn't eligible. That hasn't happened yet.
The burden of proof in cases like this is on the plaintiff. You won't see a victory in the courts if the person bringing the case doesn't have their own evidence to prove their position.
No court is going to ask for even more evidence that Obama is eligible. And they won't ask Obama to prove he isn't eligible, either. That certificate is good enough unless someone can bring a compelling case that the certificate is fraudulent.
No school records, no official records of any kind (COLB excluded) and so far as I have seen .. not even Chicago newspaper accounts have much to say about zero and his activities as a "community organizer".
Zero is one human being short of being a hologram.
hollowgram
Obama And That Other Ponzi Scheme
President-elect’s name may emerge in Norman Hsu fraud trial
DECEMBER 31—As if being linked to one high-profile criminal case weren’t enough, President-elect Barack Obama’s name may soon pop up in another federal prosecution, this one involving a massive Ponzi scheme (no, the other massive Ponzi scheme). In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme. According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned. In a letter last week to U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, Hsu’s lawyer, Martin Cohen, requested a 60-day delay in the start of Hsu’s trial, scheduled to open January 12 (Cohen cited the “extraordinary level of negative publicity” generated by the recent arrest of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff). In his December 22 letter, a copy of which you’ll find below, Cohen also noted that Hsu was already “notorious for his political activities” and that it was “inevitable” that his client’s “connections” to Bill and Hillary Clinton “and other democratic notables—including perhaps the president-elect—will be introduced at trial.” Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama’s political action committee and introduced the Illinois Democrat to Marc Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who later joined the Obama campaign’s national finance committee. Prosecutors allege that Hsu directed his investors to donate money to specific candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal campaign laws. Unswayed by Cohen’s argument, Marrero declined to delay the trial, which will begin a week before Obama’s inauguration. (6 pages)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1231082hsu1.html
I can’t help but believe that after this controversy began to break, lots of money and a few trips to Hawaii, 0bama has “manufactured” a suitable forgery and had it placed in the records. I believe he was born in Kenya, but like “who shot JFK?” we’ll never know for sure.
Like Pelosi would ask for proof!
<<My thots exactly :(
0bama has “manufactured” a suitable forgery
***I fear you are right. That’s what any sensible communist would have done in his position.
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.