Here in Nebraska we don’t require any legal verification of eligibility. All we ask for is the certification by the DNC and RNC. But the charters of those organizations require that they only nominate eligible candidates. When the Certification of Nomination is signed by the certifying people from the DNC they are making a notarized oath that they know what they have said on the document to be true.
That is absolutely perjury on the part of Pelosi - not only because she didn’t know it to be true that Obama is Constitutionally eligible, but because she knew it was NOT TRUE.
The reasons for Congress saying that McCain was eligible was because both his parents were US citizens and (they said) he was born on a military base which would legally be considered US soil. Their facts may or may not have been accurate, but the criteria they used were clear. Obama doesn’t fit those criteria, even if he was born in Hawaii.
But the truth of the matter is, there is nothing that Hawaii has which qualifies as prima facie evidence that Obama was even born in Hawaii. And Pelosi would certainly have known that if she had even so much as TRIED to see his documentation.
The fact that she didn’t even TRY says that she knew she was perjuring herself when she swore on penalty of perjury that she knew Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be president.
There is no defense for her. You can’t swear to the truth of something you know you don’t know.
--The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (also in Francais and Espanol). DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics…
--Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
The Alternative to Capitalism is Democratic Socialism link
Well how in Hell's Bells can some administrative schlub from the DNC or RNC know whether a person is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States? The Supreme Court has never said one way or the other what a natural born citizen is or whether there is a difference between natural born citizens and citizenship acquired at birth because of the place of birth.
It's incredible that there is not universal outcry for clarity on this issue -- regardless of its impact on the Obama presidency.
Why hasn't Congress enacted a law defining who is a "natural born citizen" and setting out a procedure for "fully qualifying" a president-elect under the Constutition, as well as a remedy for failure to "fully qualify"? How would Congress, mindful of the Constitution, define a "natural born citizen"?
If Congress hasn't defined it and the SCOTUS hasn't defined it, again, how in Hell's Bells can schlubbie at the DNC tell me the eventual president-elect is "fully qualified" under the Constitution? Tell me again what definition he is using and why.
How can any court, including the Supreme Court, refuse to determmine whether the Congress has fulfilled its duty to ensure the president-elect is "fully qualified" when the Congress clearly has NO LEGAL STANDARD to apply in the first place.
The court should direct the Congress to come up with a law to govern how it evaluates whether a president-elect is "fully qualified" under the Constitution.
This is what amazes me about all this. It's not even about whether Obama is fully qualified. It's about HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF HE WAS OR WAS NOT? The answer -- because the DNC told me so -- is not satisfactory. And it should not satisfy the constitutional question, either.
P.S. If Congress has spoken explicitly on what constitutes natural-born citizenship, as opposed to mere citizenship or naturalized citizenship, and I missed it, then that law is subject to judicial review if it raises a question as to whether or not it comports with the meaning of natural-born citizenship intended under the Constitution.