Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Nancy Pelosi signed one certificate of nomination which was sent to 49 states and another - saying that Obama is Constitutionally eligible - to Hawaii. People have asked why she didn't send the eligibility-certifying one to all the states, but the more pressing question is, "Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama's eligibility?"
This is on my blog but I'll post the whole thing in the first response and the link to the blog post in the 2nd response so the links will be (hopefully) clickable.
Yes, it does. Both Congress and the Courts have a tendency to point fingers at each other when it comes to responsibility, accountability, etc.
The Courts say "It's up to Congress," and Congress saying "We are powerless, it's a constitutional/legal question."
I got to wondering about the responsibility of the Chief Justice, who is called on to administer the oath of office. Obviously, he too has no objection to a president having dual citizenship and potentially split allegiance.
My bottom line is that any member of Congress who had no objection to seating a dual citizen is unqualified for Congress. Throw all the bums out. Not one, not ONE good one, in the whole bunch.
No, this is not not a civil matter, this would be a criminal matter: signing a sworn affidavit known to contain a masterially false statement is perjury. It would probably be a federal criminal case, if anyone in the Justice Department had the courage to pursue it. But, unfortunately, it will never happen in a Democrat administration and would be unlikely in a succeeding GOP administration, judging by the way the Bush DOJ went easy on all the preceding Democrat criminality.
No, this is not not a civil matter, this would be a criminal matter: signing a sworn affidavit known to contain a materially false statement is perjury. It would probably be a federal criminal case, if anyone in the Justice Department had the courage to pursue it. But, unfortunately, it will never happen in a Democrat administration and would be unlikely in a succeeding GOP administration, judging by the way the Bush DOJ went easy on all the preceding Democrat criminality.
I think Congress-critters would claim that they couldn’t legally do anything until the electoral votes were opened because until then it would just be speculation. But that sure didn’t stop them from dealing with McCain speculatively, did it? Jerks.
I suppose it’s ultimately the political parties who assign the electors who do the actual voting that counts.
Which probably means the legal buck stops right there at Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond. They gave the signal for their electors to vote for Obama because they promised he was their duly nominated candidate (i.e. fulfilling all the requirements of the DNC, which includes Constitutional eligibility). In Hawaii they went even farther and personally testified outright that they knew him to be Constitutionally eligible. Liars.
The more I think about it, Congress probably could have contested the electoral vote. Those electors could have voted for Mickey Mouse, and would Congress have to certify Mickey Mouse as the electoral winner?
But I don’t think Congress could by itself determine whether Obama is a “natural born US citizen” - unless to rule him out as one because of his age, residency, or birthplace. The dual citizenship issue probably involves interpretation of the 14th Amendment and so would require a judicial ruling.
And I think the 20th Amendment provides for a situation where Congress certifies the winner but the winner still doesn’t qualify - which just about has to mean that somebody is able to bring a case and find that he failed to qualify.
The trouble is that our courts refused to hear the cases.
What a fine mess.
You’re making me hungry. lol
Any of the critters I communicated with said they assumed that the people who are supposed to check such things were doing their jobs. Pass the buck.
In their defense, they may have been ignorant of the historical meaning of “natural born” or may have thought that the 14th Amendment superseded the historical meaning.
And they relied on misleading (I believe criminally misleading, involving criminal concealment) statements by Fukino and Okubo, reported inaccurately by a lying media (that refused to listen to the evidence presented to them).
Some of the higher leaders may have been threatened with the annihilation of the entire world economy if they balked. That’s sheer speculation on my part, but I see a lot of stuff that leads me to believe that.
So there’s a lot that has to come out in the wash. But there is no doubt that the nation and its government, media, and law enforcement are all in need of a stringent wash cycle that puts the dirt and scum down the drain where it belongs.
bfl
Thanks for the ping. Looks like they’re running out of fingers to stick in the leaks, heeheehee!
OJ Simpson was acquitted in a criminal trial and convicted in a civil one...
You know, Butter, this may sound out of topic but it isn’t.
Abu Bama isn’t running for reelection. The Quran burning threat is leveled by, as I suspected and was confirmed by a FReeper, a Democrat pastor!
Come Saturday, we’ll see what kind of chaos they are trying to start since none of their wishful thinking of violence from our side materialized.
Bottom line, 0b0z0 and his communist regime will use chaos to suspend freedoms of speech and assembly to postpone their crushing election loss indefinitely.
I pinged you on that subject and the thread couple of days ago.
Good point.
He'd have to settle for protective custody...
Thanks for all your hard work....I hope there are answers someday
I hope you get through to their offices.
I can’t imagine why Lakin’s attys wouldn’t welcome your research. Have you contacted them?
I didn't know that! A democrat??? What act of this nightmarish play are we viewing now? Just heard on Fox news this A.M. that a mosque was vandalized (wonder by whom??) in Phoenix. Guess it's starting early.
Yeah, the New Black Panther's would love to offer their services.
Regrettably, federal law enforcement, as long as the 'Rats own the executive branch, will not do anything about this matter. Plus, it would seem as if the Ethics Committee might not have jurisdiction over Pelosi, because the questionable act was not committed under her role as a member of the House, but rather as a Democratic Convention official.
Good thread. I would contribute a few general thoughts. Maybe electors should have been or should be the target of lawsuits rather than Secretaries of State, Governors or AGs for failing to vet Obama’s constitutional eligibility. Another possibility would be the leaders of any particular state’s Democratic party. Maybe this would help provide legal standing.
The other thing that would be helpful is to cite the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There is no power delegated to any specific federal body to verify the eligibility of a presidential candidate. This power would thus constitutionally fall to the state or the people, which is evidenced by the nomination forms that are turned in at the state level. If your state doesn’t specifically address presidential eligibity in its laws, then by the 10th amendment, you should legally be able to challenge any candidate or even an illegally seated president on the basis of the Constitutional eligibility requirements. IMO, this is where the Constitution gives ALL citizens standing to fight this issue in court.
Earlier you mentioned there not being a clear ruling on the meaning of natural born citizen. I disagree as Minor v. Happersett gave a very clear definition for which there is ‘no doubt.’ The important thing in any of these lawsuits would be to make sure they specifically cite the Supreme Court as providing this definition. There’s no way to argue against it because it IS very clear.
First the SCOTUS associated this term with the Constitution and with the requirement for POTUS: “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ...” and then says, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
IOW, the SCOTUS expressed doubt about any other way to define natural born citizen. The definition they used is nearly verbatim from Vattel of being born in the country to parents who are citizens. It’s important however that in a case, that one would cite the Supreme Court directly, rather than Vattel. This way, the court hearing a case can’t deny its applicability, like they did in Ankeny v. Daniels. No equal or higher ruling has altered this definition, so it would be precedential.
If that's where the votes fall, yes, that's where the votes fall. Congress can still object on the basis of failure to meet the qualifications, and find that there has been a failure on the part of the electors to elect a person qualified for the office. At that point, they follow the procedure set forth in the 12th amendment - and if the House can't elect a qualified president, well, as you say, a major housecleaning is in order.
By the way, I agree that Pelosi and the DNC are legally on the hook for testifying that Obama, a known dual citizen at birth, meets the constitutional qualifications. But I think the issue of qualification has no traction with either of the established political parties.
I find the entire federal government operation to be basically one of misdirection, dishonesty, and subterfuge. The government is irredeemably corrupt. Elections are held in order to mislead the public into believing it (the public) is under some form of self-government. It's an illusion.
I give the government respect, for the same reason I give the mafia respect. They have force of violence, and they are eager to use it to obtain submission. But neither outfit has any legitimate claim to power by the consent of the governed. The feds have violated the constitution every which way, and then they, themselves, through their own federal courts, conclude that they haven't. Too few of the people have a clue and care. The system can't collapse fast enough to suit me.
Interesting take. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I do believe that the dems believe they have an ace-in-the-hole that will deliver them from the electorate, or they wouldn’t have been willing to cram everything down our throats AFTER having faced enraged town hall crowds. They knew we were angry and they chose to take it in the shorts anyway. No politician willingly decides to take it in the shorts. There’s got to be something more that they’re counting on.
Would they have jurisdiction simply because she is a Congresswoman? I don’t know how jurisdiction works for that committee.
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.