The “Failed to Qualify” Eligibility Issue

June 3, 2012 | Art in Idaho

[Art in Idaho]

Laugh and say I’m late to the party on this but my take on the whole eligibility thing is to approach it that Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC intentionally withheld the Long Form Birth Certificate either because it didn’t exist; showed Obama wasn’t NBC, or it contained embarrassing data to Obama. Either way, he failed to qualify and broke the law by withholding the long form birth certificate from the people who were supposed to review it. It’s my understanding that Pelosi and the DNC just “stated” Obama qualified and pushed through getting him on the ballot in each of the states. What behind the scenes shenanigans took place, we’ll never know. Bottom line, he illegally got on each state ballot – unless they can prove otherwise.

So, if he failed to qualify by showing no one the long form, he broke the law. He knowingly and willingly took the oath of office knowing he failed to qualify. It’s almost as if forget NBC, forget where he was born, forget who his father was; he failed to qualify because he flunked the qualification standard - he did not produce a birth certificate.

If he failed to produce the LFBC, and also he, as Ed Vieira said, "If Obama took the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he knowingly committed the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof." The “failed to qualify” and NBC are two separate but very important issues.

Serious issues:

1. SCOTUS needs to review this acute issue – the “failed to qualify” problem – and make a determination soon, before the election season gets in full gear. And if they get the response, “we showed the short form, twice,” then it’s a “so what?” That was after the election. Regardless if they are fraudulent forgeries, (though that’s certainly important), the issue is What was Presented before the 2008 election to get on the ballot? As far as we know, nothing, hence the fraud and perjury charges. He illegally “snuck in” to get on the ballot. Prove us wrong Pelosi. Show us what you saw to get him on the ballots. If you saw, examined, reviewed, double sourced and triple checked the authenticity of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate, then we’ll apologize. I don’t think you saw it at all.

2. SCOTUS and Congress needs to address the NBC issue either by constitutional amendment or new law stating exactly what NBC entails and appoint a reviewing body to ensure each Presidential candidate meets the requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"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."

3. The Secretary of State of each state is bound by the same mandate, to ensure each Presidential candidate fulfills constitutional requirements. Documents reviewed, sourced, checked by three independent reviewing agencies and signed off.

4. The issue of anchor babies being allowed to be a candidate for president needs to be addressed, hopefully by # 2 above. Sooner or later, it will happen unless it is addressed. You want Ahmadinejad’s wife to fly to the USA, have her baby and eventually be eligible to run for President?

5. If Obama “failed to qualify,” then we are guided by US Constitution Amendment 20 (hat tip Flotsam_Jetsome):

“3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Are we going to demand a national proof of qualification to be on the Presidential ballot in 2012, or are we going to take the DNC’s word for it and set the stage for another “failed to qualify” fraud? Will the American people accept that?

So where do we go from here to get this issue resolved? Petition? A legal court case based solely on the “failed to qualify” issue?

[Art in Idaho]

Your child has to present his Birth Certificate to play little league baseball. How did Nancy Pelosi and the DNC get Obama on the ballot without having to show his Long Form Birth Certificate to comply with constitutional requirements?

Is "Failed to Qualify" an avenue worth pursuing? On the face of things, it sure seems so. If Obama "failed to qualify,", his Presidency is null and void. No positive proof of eligibility to date = No LFBC = No ballot!

Appreciate feedback from our esteemed Legal FReepers.

[FewsOrange]

Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election.

Have all previous presidents presented long form birth certificates before being placed on the ballot in each state?

[Mr Rogers]

To the best of my knowledge, no state requires a presidential candidate to show a birth certificate. I know Arizona just takes the word of the candidate’s party.

I’ve tried to get them to change that, but no luck so far.

And even the AZ law vetoed in 2010 would have allowed certification by Hawaii.

[Art in Idaho]

Have all previous presidents presented long form birth certificates before being placed on the ballot in each state?

Probably not. I was referring to the Constitutional mandate: "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."

My assumption has always been some agency of government guaranteed this before the person was allowed to be placed on the ballot. If an idedpendent verification body does not exist, it certainly should be instituted.

[I am Richard Brandon]

What would they do if if they gave a party and nobody came?
What would you do if you brought a lawsuit and nobody ruled?

[Art in Idaho]

I know Arizona just takes the word of the candidate’s party.

That obviously is no longer going to work. Hence the immediacy of getting this resolved in each state.

[ConjunctionJunction]

There is no independent mechanism for determining eligibility. That’s the problem.

[infool7]

“Welcome to the party, pal!” John McClane - Diehard

[Art in Idaho]

There is no independent mechanism for determining eligibility. That’s the problem.

For lots of reasons, this has to be addressed. I hope Congress will address this soon. We do not want a repeat of what happened in 2008. Do you trust the democrats at their word? "The end justifies the means." . . Okay, they will say the same about us. So be it. Then lets have an independent mechanism to determine eligibility.

[Baynative]

From an article in the Canada Free Press 9/10/2009:

"... the Democrat Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the job. The proper legal text used on the DNC Party “Official Certification of Nomination” document reads as follows, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The document is signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Colorado Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson. It is dated August 28, 2008.

However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself.

Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.

The “Official Certification of Nomination” that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.

But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

[Star Traveler]

There was no law (no legal requirement) that a candidate had to show his birth certificate. It’s a good idea, but it’s never been a law.

What a candidate must do is swear to it that he meets the three conditions of the US Constitution, in order to run for the Office of President of the United States. The states themselves usually require this “swearing” (a legal document, by the way) that a candidate is qualified per the three requirements of the US Constitution. That’s what’s been required in the past.

And Obama and the Democrat Party both swore to that effect (again, a legal document).

SO ... if there is a law that is made that REQUIRES a candidate to show a birth certificate (certified by the state that he was born in) - then all the better.

Someone better get to work on that.

[Art in Idaho]

Wow, missed that article.

But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

Amazing. They left out ". . following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

They better put it in this time and be able to back it up with the LFBC. No more trusting the democrats. "Show me."

[Art in Idaho]

Thanks for the info. Didn't know about the "swearing" as a legal document. So that's as far as it goes then. As you say, "There was no law (no legal requirement) that a candidate had to show his birth certificate. It’s a good idea, but it’s never been a law." . . "Someone better get to work on that."

Obama aside, I hope Congress addresses this.

[Art in Idaho]

“Welcome to the party, pal!” John McClane - Diehard

Thanks! : ) I hope this issue doesn't go away. As I said above, Obama aside, these issues need to be resolved so this debacle never occurs again. Long gone are the days of taking the gentlemanly handshake word of the DNC.

[jaydee770]

Serious issues:

Even SERIOUSER issue:
Who in a position of authority with the ability to do *anything* about Obama's questionable eligibility has shown the slightest interest in pursuing anything beyond paying lip-service? To date, no one at the local, state or federal level has done more than "talk a good fight", as far as I am aware. Somebody please correct me if there has been any inquiry that has gained any traction towards a legal action that will stick.

So, I can appreciate all the points you are making and I have reasonable and prudent questions about Obama's eligibility. But good luck finding anyone to do anything about it.

[Jim Noble]

my take on the whole eligibility thing is to approach it that Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election

What law is that?

[Art in Idaho]

There was no law (no legal requirement) that a candidate had to show his birth certificate. It’s a good idea, but it’s never been a law.

On second thought, when it says, "No person, etc" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, isn't that "law enough," since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Understand, I'm not an attorney, but to my naive eye, doesn't "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;" cover it? Like I said, I just assumed someone vetted this. My duh. .

[Art in Idaho]

my take on the whole eligibility thing is to approach it that Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election

What law is that?

As I just said in #17, I assumed the Article II, "No person, etc" was the supreme law of the land and someone or some entity "checked this out." After all, we're talking about the President and the Constitution here. Come to find out, all the DNC has to do is "swear" to it and sign it. Means nothing to them. Do we trust Pelosi and the DNC? America now demands proof! Let's make this a formal legal process!

[Art in Idaho]

So, I can appreciate all the points you are making and I have reasonable and prudent questions about Obama's eligibility. But good luck finding anyone to do anything about it.

I wish there was some big group, Heritage?, or some legal firm that would take this on. It needs to be resolved somehow, someway, for posterity if nothing else. This whole thing has been such a mess from the get go.

[FreeInWV]

Someone with standing could bring a court case. But as we saw in ‘08, they maust have standing. That would either be a State AG or the GOP nominee. I doubt we will get either.

Of course Ol’ Mittens could just say “Its time for us to put all of this behind us. Produce it already!” We know that will never happen....