This would be the fastest way to get this case heard in the right place ... the SCOTUS. However, and it's a big butt, everything I have heard from the states, seems to hinge on "birth in Hawaii." That, IMHO, is beside the point.
EVERY Republican office holder I have communicated with on the subject has replied "......born in Hawaii," or some lame variation. I gave up after 20.
EVERY Republican office holder I have communicated with on the subject has replied “......born in Hawaii,” or some lame variation. I gave up after 20.
*************************************************************
I asked both my Senators (both Republican) what their definition of nbC was and if matched that of Vattel’s Law of Nations. Nothing else. I did not mention Obama or Hawaii or anything else. The goal was to put MY REPRESENTATIVE on the record.
Clearly, they understood why this question was being asked and I received back the kool-aid response like you did.
Anyone and everyone in Congress in 2008 was in on it. Everyone.
He could be born on the moon and it wouldn’t matter. He is NOT a natural born citizen.
Translation, I agree.
No, I'm sorry. That's the FLOTUS.
IMHO, the laws that have been proposed to this point would not change anything. They still leave it up to “somebody”/nobody to decide what documents are needed and what definition of “natural born citizen” to use, which defies the whole checks and balances system.
We have to have laws which say exactly what documents have to be submitted. We have to have laws which require the documents to be made public and a way for the public to contribute to the accountability so that corrupt bureaucrats CANNOT screw the American public.
Look at what happened in Hawaii. The Hawaii Elections Office, according to Brian Adams, knew all along that Hawaii has no valid birth certificate for Obama. So they knew there was a problem with his eligibility even if the most lax definition of “natural born” was used. They have no SOS so the Elections Office is the only verifying body they have. Even if the HI DOE were required to see all the documents and it could be absolutely proven that they knew Obama had no valid BC, the laws that have been proposed in other states to this point would leave the public with no way to force the DOE to keep Obama off the HI ballot.
There also would be no way to force the courts to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen” and thus no functional definition for an SOS to use even if he/she MEANT to be earnest.
I’ve posted a thread proposing a draft of a bill that could be proposed in the various states, which I believe addresses the legal snags and pitfalls that the Obama coup has revealed. I want to make a few changes, based on input I’ve received, and then I’ll repost it here.
At this point I don’t think we can count on Congress or the federal government AT ALL. But there is no way that Obama’s thugs can threaten the legislators in every state legislature without making their whole scheme of bribes and threats too well-known and greatly increasing the risk of the threatened people spilling the beans on him. If he has to threaten that many people it would be an open, all-out coup.
That’s why we need to - immediately - lean on our state legislatures to HOLD THAT LINE. We’ve made huge gains in the states, and that’s where the battle for America is going to play out.
I’m going to do some revising on what I had posted earlier and get back to you. I especially hope that those who have a different “bent” than mine on the eligibility issue look at what I’ve got and see if they think it addresses the vulnerabilities they feel most keenly right now.
Basically I want the laws that are passed to
1) require a process that eliminates from the ballot anybody whose documentation show them ineligible,
2) enable the people to hold bureaucrats LEGALLY accountable to deal honestly, and
3) to require the courts to decide eligibility issues according to the standards for evidence and law.
I’ll get back to you.
I hope this formats correctly. Here’s a draft I propose for states:
Whereas the US Constitution states the requirements for Presidential eligibility and gives the federal judiciary the responsibility of interpreting and applying the Constitution but gives the individual states the responsibility of choosing Presidential electors resulting in a Constitutionally eligible President;
Whereas the only security clearance given to the Commander-in-Chief is the vote of the people, who do not individually have authority to demand documentation necessary for such a security clearance; and
Whereas the Congressional Research Service has concluded that “there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election. The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law.”
Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President or Vice President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed and Constitutional eligibility is confirmed:
1. The prospective candidate must complete a sworn application stating their birth date, birth place, years of US residency, and the US citizenship status of each parent at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.
2. The prospective candidate must submit evidence of the years of US residency.
3. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to ALL his/her birth documents from the Vital Records Office in his/her birth state, including any supplementary documentation and written and/or embedded transaction records for the birth record.
4. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to all citizenship records for the prospective candidate and his/her parents from the Department of State and INS.
5. The Secretary of State must procure all the records listed in 3 and 4, and directly on the application mark on a check-off list Yes or No for whether each of the following occurs:
a) An amended/altered or late birth certificate.
b) A birth certificate showing a birth date resulting in an age younger than 35 years as of the beginning of the Presidential term for which he/she desires to run.
c) A birth certificate showing a birth place outside the United States.
d) Insufficient proof of at least 14 years of US residency.
e) Citizenship records showing the candidate having citizenship in another country at any time.
f) Citizenship records showing one or more parent not having US citizenship at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.
g) Transaction records showing amendments or filing dates that do not match what is stated on the birth certificate.
h) Checklist disputed within 30 days of public posting
6. After completing Step 5 the Secretary of State shall post on the State SOS website the application, the check-off list, and redacted copies of the documentation provided – the originals of which shall be made available for public inspection at the SOS office on request.
7. If, within 30 days of the online posting, any person files a written complaint with the Attorney General documenting reasons to dispute the veracity of the evidence presented or the way the list is checked off, the Attorney General must check Yes on item h: Check list disputed.
8. If after 30 days of the online posting every item on the check-off list is checked “No”, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other State ballot requirements are met.
9. If after 30 days of the online posting any item on the check-off list is checked “Yes”, then the candidate must be informed by certified mail that their name is not allowed to appear on the ballot and the State Attorney General must within 10 days file an expedited lawsuit in the State Court on behalf of the prospective candidate, with all documentation collected throughout the process submitted to the court. The public must be able to file amicus briefs either in support of or to refute the prospective candidate’s eligibility.
10. If all appeals at the State level and/or United States Supreme Court level are exhausted and the court has ruled that the person is eligible, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met.
Be it further resolved that if, after Step 9, the court confirms that the prospective candidate is INELIGIBLE, the Attorney General must notify by certified mail the Chairman of each national political party. If a political party nominates the ineligible candidate anyway, the Attorney General must file contempt of court charges against the Chairman of that political party.