[/caption] Posted on 03/30/2011 11:21:07 AM PDT by patlin
Let me set the stage with "Propaganda: A Primer by Mark Levin" (1 min 8 sec)
[audio http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/levin03292011b.mp3]
While the rest of the lame stream media & blogoshere have been trotting out Donald Trump and his birth certificate, they have failed/purposefully glossed over the immediate Constitutional issue . . . "natural born citizen". Now don't get me wrong, I think it is great that Trump has elevated this issue into the lame stream alphabet media, however that media is still pulling one over you.
Rewind to last Saturday night. Mike Huckabee formally discloses, with a rather flippant attitude, the fact that neither the DNC, GOP, the US Congress or any of the states currently require that a presidential candidate must provide proof of "natural born citizenship". Or for that matter, any citizenship at all.
[wpvideo qTRuUbIW]
The only aspect of a presidential candidate's life they are required to disclose is their financial history. WHAT? FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE? WHERE IS THAT REQUIREMENT IN ARTICLE II, SEC I OF THE CONSTITUTION?
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Arizona has the best legislation thus far for determing the citizenship of all candidates. It requires everything needed for the AZ SOS to determine the eligibility of the candidate. It also contains protection for each & every registered voting AZ citizen to challenge a candidates eligibility within a reasonable period of time. The pertinent points are as follows:
16-507.01. Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications; enforcementToday, Leo Donofrio published his latest research. In that research is reference to a 1968 US Supreme Court 14th Amendment case that clarifies what authority the states have in regards to interpreting the US Constitution and passing laws to ensure that the US Constitution is being upheld. The specific part of Justice Black's concurring opinion of Justice White's deciding opinion states:B. The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate's mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.
D. A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section."
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)I have read the opinions and it is very clear that the states do have constitutional authority to interpret the term "natural born" as it was defined by Bingham & Trumbull who were the authors who submitted the amendment in their respective chambers of Congress. Bingham in the House & Trumbull in the Senate. According to the US Constitution, it is the states who are the sole protectors of the ballot. Therefore, any laws that are in compliance with the US Constitution are themselves constitutional. Including laws governing eligibility credentials.“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)
How sad is it, that today we live in such a morally corrupt era, one can not trust that any given candidate is going to have the integrity & honor of former generations. The kind of integrity & honor that this great nation was built upon. But not only the candidates, we can not even trust our own state elected officials to do their job to ensure the integrity of our ballots.
[caption id="attachment_4838" align="alignleft" width="326" caption="click on photo for a larger view"][/caption]
I have already reported how former SOS Chris Nelson accepted & certified the nomination of Obama & Biden without any shred of evidence they were even eligible. Neither the State or National DNC, in which Nelson relied upon by faith not fact, certified that the persons they nominated were eligible under the provisions of Article II, Sec I of the United States Constitution. However in 2000 & in 2004, the DNC certification of nomination did contain the required language.
2000/2004/2008 HI Democratic Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates (funny business going on in Hawaii)
WHY THE CHANGE? WHY THE REMOVAL OF THE QUALIFICATION LANGUAGE? WHY THE SAME LANGUAGE FOR ALL 50 STATES IN 2000 & 2004, BUT NOT IN 2008?
Is this the new kind of integrity level for state elected officials, both public & party?
2012 is going to be upon us very soon. What are you going to do to protect your state's ballot from ineligible candidates? In 2008 Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party), was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, VT, NJ, NY & Minnesota.
2008 Governor of Minnesota & 2012 presidential hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, thinks presidential qualifications are a "DISTRACTION". And he also thinks that already debunked CNN reports are the almighty gospel truth:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOf61UDGzS4]
So, just how reliable is Pawlenty's CNN?
UPI NEWS: CNN Chief: Obama birth story 'dead'; Published: July 24, 2009 @ 8:02 PM
NEW YORK, July 24 (UPI) -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" the controversy over President Barack Obama's birth certificate is a "dead story."Umm, I thought I just heard Pawlenty say that he heard on CNN that they had actually saw the original long form document? Let me check? Yep, he sure did. Now since Klein wrote his staff in a 'super secret' e-mail that the original long form had been destroyed in 2001(how convenient), how could they have actually seen it? Does Jon Klein & the CNN research staff have some 'futuristic-super-dooper' telepathy that allows them to see documents that were supposedly destroyed 10 years ago?Klein wrote in an e-mail to staffers Thursday that CNN researchers had determined Hawaiian officials discarded paper birth documents in 2001. Thus, he said, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists, and a shorter certificate that is public is the official record.
The truth is, Hawaii still maintains all the archived documents from 1961. If Obama's original long form exists, it would take but a 5 minute call to have it released. The truth is, per order from Klein, the CNN staff of "propagandists" have been lying to the American public since the eligibility questions all began in 2007. But it's not just CNN having all their fun at our expense, NPR has been at it for years now too. I ask you, is this how our tax dollars are suppose to work? NPR"S astonishing admission comes at 1:38 into the video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=XGsxJklq5Ww]
So, now that technicalities have been addressed. The question begs to be answered...why is the Huckmeister's gaffe been white-washed by ALL media, including "FOX" news.
Because the federal "government" is doing everything it can to ignore the Constitution. It's up to the states to save the Union.
But the states will never do it because all the lie-brals and more than enough conservatives and independents will be happy to believe this is a matter of federal preemption of states rights.
Besides, it would take political courage. Which is in pretty short supply in most state legislatures.
What Obama’s trying to do with our military by going to the UN and totally ignoring our Congress. He’s setting a precedence. He’s doing it on purpose. From now on other Presidents can ignore Congress and go to war.
He’s doing the same about the eligibility. After Obama, anybody can be President. And illegal mexican may be out commander in chief tomorrow. That’s why he’s ignoring it. He was probably born in NJ for all we know. He may not be hiding anything. But his failure to prove it with documents sets a precedence for all future Presidents.
I don’t refer to them as birthers... they’re more like constitutionalists, if you ask me.
“information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents,”
This needs to be tightened. What’s relevant is the citizenship of both parents at the time of the candidate’s birth.
Trump’s an example of a candidate whose mother was born outside the U.S. but nevertheless became a U.S. citizen well before he was born. But had she attained that citizenship a year after his birth, he would not be eligible.
The point is that having a candidate submit information about the parent’s current or most recent citizenship status will not suffice the reliably sort out genuine natural born citizens from those who are not. What you don’t want is another Obama-type candidate who submits exactly what is requested and then who fights in court to avoid having to disclose the additional information regarding parental citizenship that really matters, on grounds that they technically complied with the letter of the law and hence should be declared eligible.
We lost our chance to committee failer (spineless RINOS) this year. Next year we won’t!
DrC . . . Your obfuscating remarks are so obvious...go back to politijab and the other progressive boards where they think you actually know what you are talking about. You are so out of your league here!
Utah passed amnetys but they could not pass this. F Utah.
I actually think Obozo can probably prove he was born in the United States. He just thinks he’s bigger than the constitution and doesn’t have to.
There, fixed it for you
That's the part we can't have. Next it will be banning guns. He's already gone to war without even consulting Congress and I doubt he plans to consult Congess because his point is that the United Nations trumps the United States Congress.
Slippery slope
You would think at least one of the 57 states could pass it.
Unfortunately, his disapproval ratings need to get north of the 60% range before our glorious gutless cowards in congress will even flirt with impeachment proceedings.
“Your obfuscating remarks are so obvious...go back to politijab and the other progressive boards where they think you actually know what you are talking about. You are so out of your league here!”
Huh? I support these state initiatives. I was offering a suggestion to IMPROVE them. Your ad hominem attack was entirely unwarranted. If you have something substantive to say, then say it. Otherwise, shut your yap.
Yes, you would think
It was announced today that OK is set to take another big step. I don't have the info on AZ as to when it comes up again there after passing our of both committees. But I do know, SD will have somehthing again in both the state House & Senate committees in Nov and our Reps will be more informed and we will hold their feet to the fire if they do not uphold the integrity of our elections.
SD State Constitution:
Aarticle VII, Sec. III : Elections. The Legislature shall by law define residence for voting purposes, insure secrecy in voting and provide for the registration of voters, absentee voting, the administration of elections, the nomination of candidates and the voting rights of those serving in the armed forces.
History: 1889 Const., art. VII, §§ 3, 6, 7; amendment proposed by SL 1974, ch 2, approved Nov. 5, 1974.
Right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Trolls like you try and suggest language that is not needed in order to drag it out & obfuscate until it is too late. The language of the AZ bill is just fine. They are not using the document to determine citizenship of the candidate today, but at birth & the parents citizenship at that time is what is needed to make that determination.
Now, go obfuscate elsewhere
“They are not using the document to determine citizenship of the candidate today, but at birth & the parents citizenship at that time is what is needed to make that determination.”
First, I never stated they were using the documentation to determine the the citizenship of the candidate TODAY.
Second, IF the Arizona law was intended—as you claim—to determine citizenship of the parents AT THAT TIME (i.e., when candidate was born), then why doesn’t the law state that? Here is the full text, as YOU posted it:
“1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate’s mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.”
My whole point was that the language “including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents” DOESN’T in fact obligate the candidate to provide ANY information regarding his/her parents’ citizenship at the time of his/her birth.
Any MORON who understands the meaning of plain English can see my point. The fact that you can’t speaks volumes.
I guess the term “natural born citizen” which is at birth and which is THE requirement is too hard for you to comprehend.
SOOOOOO out of your league
Er...I think you misread DrC.
“I guess the term “natural born citizen” which is at birth and which is THE requirement is too hard for you to comprehend.”
Anyone who has read our exchange realizes the statement you’ve made about my comprehension of this issue is complete and utter nonsense. If you’re truly a birther doing your best to defend the birther position, I respectfully suggest you sit on the sidelines, as you clearly are not up to the task. Alternatively, you are a troll trying to make birthers look like blithering idiots. In either case, further “conversation” with you is pointless.
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.