Think of all the spelling mistakes
Sometimes the ballot checkers can be sticklers. Many years ago my cousin's shop was unionized because they threw out a huge number of ballots where the check-mark went outside the box, or it wasn't a "proper X", or some other incorrect mark, or marks. Also a large number didn't take it seriously and wrote "screw-U-union" across the ballot. Big mistake. Out of 400, the union won by 23 votes, and there were 128 "spoiled or incorrect ballots". Sad.
Anyway, if there is an Obama write-in in GA, I think spelling should be exact, or nothing, and they should be required to write ALL his aliases.....HeHe-LOL-LMAO. Let's see is it Barrie (Barry?)Subarko, er, Sahbarkah, Sebarhkeh, rats....how DO you spell that?
BHO’s name could be written in all they want. He still could not be certified as a winner nor awarded GA electors to the electoral college if he was disqualified as to meeting the statutory and constitutional requirements of the position.
What would be the point of declaring a candidate ineligible if the solution were so simple? Doesn’t the fact that he’s ineligible trump the number of votes he gets? An ineligible candidate can’t serve even if elected—so how could the Georgia votes count?
“It’s possible that Obama may not be allowed on the Georgia ballot. However, all of those weeping Democrat Party socialists in Georgia will still be allowed to write in the name “Barack Hussein Obama”. Just think how long it will take to examine and tabulate all of those write-ins. “
I thought of that too. But it won’t matter because he will not be eligible in GA. As far as I know then those write ins will not count.
I think I disagree, though I am no expert. It would seem to me if the evidence showed that he had not proven his qualifications, would that not mean that even if he was the winner in a write in campaign, he would still not have proven his eligibility.
Would he not still need to prove NBC status meaning two American parents at the time of his birth?
In the Second Session of the First Congress, the term natural born citizen was defined.
As early as March 26, 1790, Congress did in fact pass a law defining a natural born citizen, and stated that it had to be a person born in the US of two US parents who were citizens at the time of birth.
Here is the text from the Congressional Record:
FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 4. 1790
CHAP. III.—An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and Hours of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
APPROVED, March 26, 1790.
Repealed January 29, 1795.
These were the founders. They did not interpret someone else’s intent. It was their intent, expressed within mere months of the ratification of the Constitution.
A rule needs to be established on this, regardless of Slick Willard, Jindal, Rubio, or anyone else is disqualified.