So here's a fact, if I can be so arrogant as to present information to a scholar such as yourself. There are already ballot rules and qualifications in place, but they were not enforced. Do you understand the difference between having a law and then not enforcing it. It doesn't do any good to pass more laws when the officials can ignore them without consequence. If you don't understand and need an example see "illegal immigration."
In California, the secretary of state has excluded people from the ballot before because their birth certificates indicated they did not meet the minimum age requirement for the office of president. Yet, in 2008, when confronted with information that a candidate may not be a natural born citizen, the current democrat incumbant did nothing, accepting a form signed by party officials who had every reason to not look into the issue.
That means she failed to carry out her ministerial responsibilities. This is what you are characterizing as my discontent. Of course you mean my discontent with the negligence commited by our government and elected officials.
Lastly, we need a USSC decision on the issue of the father's citizenship and whether or not the guy is a natural born citizen. Don't bother posting the links, I've read the threads. We still need a ruling and apply it to the 2008 situation. If enough people like you wake up and smell the coffee, perhaps this issue would get some traction. Instead you waste time arguing with people who want the constitution followed.
I assume you pursue this issue because you believe Obama is not qualified to be President. I think that's wrong, but fair enough. The distinction I think you are failing to make is between what you would like to see as due diligence from the law and what the law actually requires for due diligence.
That's not uncommon. I've turned down lots of cases that are pointless because the prospective client is envisioning the law as something other than what it is. As I've said before, the law isn't King Soloman’s court or some Oracle where you go to get the wise man to make it up on the fly because he's wise. The law is a process constrained by its sub-processes. It can't just do whatever it wants.
“So here's a fact, if I can be so arrogant as to present information to a scholar such as yourself. There are already ballot rules and qualifications in place, but they were not enforced. Do you understand the difference between having a law and then not enforcing it. It doesn't do any good to pass more laws when the officials can ignore them without consequence. If you don't understand and need an example see “illegal immigration.”
In California, the secretary of state has excluded people from the ballot before because their birth certificates indicated they did not meet the minimum age requirement for the office of president. Yet, in 2008, when confronted with information that a candidate may not be a natural born citizen, the current democrat incumbant did nothing, accepting a form signed by party officials who had every reason to not look into the issue.”
Ballot rules specify what level of verification is required. The substantiating official has no legal obligation to do anything beyond what those rules state. Legally, by definition, it is not negligence to limit oneself to what is required. If the rules don't say “as verified by submittal of candidate's birth certificate,” the substantiating official doesn't have to see one. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the stipulated facts of the candidates biography are an adequate basis for decision.
Now, you may not like that this is so. That does not change the fact that legally it is so. I vividly recall one poor, red-in-the-face business owner who insisted over and over that a state regulatory agency could not make him do something. I had the unfortunate task of telling him that, yes, legally they can, that questioning their authority to do so was a guaranteed loser as opposed to other avenues of appeal.
“That means she failed to carry out her ministerial responsibilities. This is what you are characterizing as my discontent. Of course you mean my discontent with the negligence committed by our government and elected officials.”
No, it does not. It means the duties that are defined for her do not seem satisfactory to you. You may think it is negligence, but legally it is not. Obama’s placement on the ballot met the legal requirements in place. If you don't like those requirements, work to strengthen them.
“Lastly, we need a USSC decision on the issue of the father's citizenship and whether or not the guy is a natural born citizen. Don't bother posting the links, I've read the threads. We still need a ruling and apply it to the 2008 situation. If enough people like you wake up and smell the coffee, perhaps this issue would get some traction. Instead you waste time arguing with people who want the constitution followed.”
We may need one, but we are extremely unlikely to get one. The Supreme Court's failure to accept any of the cases that would allow it to examine that issue to date is telling.
What I'm saying is that in the eyes of the law, the Constitution is being followed. And no one has a shred of meaningful evidence to the contrary. That's simply the cards on the table.