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?

[Star Traveler]

All that has been necessary from the “states” to “meet that requirement” of the US Constitution is for someone to sign a notarized statement to the state (usually the state’s form for candidacy) and say that they meet those requirements.

You do it all the time yourself. You may not have to “prove” to a bank or some agency or “whatever organization” that you meet this qualification or that qualification. They simply ask you to sign it to the effect that you do meet the qualification. If you lie, you’ve committed a crime. But, you signing it saying that it’s true, comes under the penalty of the law if you’re lying, you see.

For example, you sign a statement to the IRS saying that you have no other income other than what you’ve indicated to them on the form. And then that’s all that is required. BUT, if they find out later that you’ve lied - you’re in a heap of trouble.

SO ... it’s not an unusual procedure as people do it all the time in their own everyday lives. They sign statements asserting that “this or that” is true - under the penalty of law.

That’s basically what the candidates have done in the past and what the states have required of them - simply stating under the penalty of law that they meet those requirements of the US Constitution.

The US Constitution doesn’t say that you “have to prove it” - it simply says that you have to “BE” all three of those requirements. The states have taken the “route” that simply does what you’ve done many times over again in signing some “legal affirmation” that is required of you (that you meet some qualification that is required of you).

The PROBLEM comes in only in the case someone has lied. If that’s the case, all that is required to disqualify someone is to provide proof of their lie and then they’re disqualified.

Or, if you want to “PREVENT” a problem from happening in the future, then one can take a pro-active stance on the issue and then require a certified birth certificate from the state that someone was born in - and make that being supplied with the application (for candidacy) a requirement.

It’s a simple thing - just require a certified birth certificate (whatever is required by courts for proof of birth in a state, or whatever is required for getting a drivers license, for instance) - to be submitted along with the notarized signature on the state form.

BUT ... once again ... as far as what has already happened in the past with prior candidates, no state has ever made a certified birth certificate from the state that the person was born in a requirement. They’ve only required a person state that they’re qualified and have the signature notarized. That’s the legal document that the candidate provides. If someone knows that the candidate is lying - then all they have to do is prove the lie.

[Art in Idaho]

Since Nancy P et al varied the notice of qualification, they are well aware that he is NOT qualified.

And I say can't each state's election board and/or each Secretary of State demand the constitutional wording be inserted before it is accepted in 2012?

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.”

[Art in Idaho]

This is a much better issue then his (Trump) blathering about the BC> It is something tangible that people can see and read for themselves.

Certainly agree people can understand the "Failure to Qualify" and the differences in the two documents. I hope he responds to this. Most people would say, "Hey, this just isn't right. . He didn't show any birth certificate? Yeah I get the birther stuff, was kinda' turned off by it. . But this, he refused to show anyone his birth certificate before the election." Maybe this will get some traction.

[Art in Idaho]

Thank you for the informative post. Very interesting.

Bears repeating:

Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".

[Art in Idaho]

Thank you for the great explanation regarding the agreement, trust and "give their word":

You may not have to “prove” to a bank or some agency or “whatever organization” that you meet this qualification or that qualification. They simply ask you to sign it to the effect that you do meet the qualification. If you lie, you’ve committed a crime. But, you signing it saying that it’s true, comes under the penalty of the law if you’re lying, you see.

The US Constitution doesn’t say that you “have to prove it” - it simply says that you have to “BE” all three of those requirements.

The PROBLEM comes in only in the case someone has lied. If that’s the case, all that is required to disqualify someone is to provide proof of their lie and then they’re disqualified.

Ahh, proof of their lie. Time to dig deeper and bring on the expert witnesses. .

[cynwoody]

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

I don't think so.

Back in '52 the GOP had a candidate who was undocumented until the October before the election, despite having just won the biggest war in the history of the world.

Of course, even if he'd remained undocumented until the following January, he'd still have been eligible.

But it's nevertheless quaint and charming that they felt the need to document him anyway. Actually, the effort was more of a publicity stunt by Lonnie Roberts, who wanted to highlight that Eisenhower had been born in Denison. (But the whack-jobs of the day claimed it was a conspiracy to hide the fact General Eisenhower was Jewish, LOL).

[Art in Idaho]

Wow, that's great you found the newspaper clipping on Ike: "Ike gets Birth Certificate; Filed in Courthouse Here."

Now there was a real American. .

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"And then that’s all that is required. BUT, if they find out later that you’ve lied - you’re in a heap of trouble."

Okay, I just had a rather long ELOL.

[Diggity]

DNC never claimed he was qualified in the affirmation letter sent to the states naming him as the nominee.

Entire fault lies with the incompetent secretary of states in the US.

It’s their responsibility to determine if a person is eligible to be on the ballot and they are to blame.

[Eye of Unk]

Pelosi will be the fallguy so to speak.

being that I would be willing to bet sometime soon she may find her usefulness at an end and then she becomes a liability to Obama by testifying against him when she accepted the forms saying he was qualified and brushed off the question if it was verified.

And people wonder why there was such a contrived theatrical swearing in ceremony.

[GregNH]

I would point out that us birthers new of the 20th before the election, The Unqualified President, and had contacted our representative before the electoral count and informed them of the need to object. No one would commit. You need one from each body.

[edge919]

Wow, that's great you found the newspaper clipping on Ike: "Ike gets Birth Certificate; Filed in Courthouse Here."

Now there was a real American. .

Excellent point. Obama has never let his alleged birth certificate anywhere near a courthouse.

[hoosiermama]

The bureaucrats are in auto pilot... They’ll stamp/sign anything put in front of them....Don't we all...Whoever reads fine print any more?

[Art in Idaho]

The bureaucrats are in auto pilot... They’ll stamp/sign anything put in front of them....Don't we all...Whoever reads fine print any more?

I understand. . Had to force myself to read a legal document recently. Once you start your okay, but. . the wording. . it's as if they word it that way so no one will read it. : )

One would hope with the "big stuff," the politicians would at least have committees and go, "Okay gang, here's page 1, let's get through this." Isn't that what they're paid to do? Any committee I've been on, you got the papers, read through them, (I usually reviewed privately too). . Oh, I forgot, that's the real world. . and "signed off" or voted on them after review and discussion. Why is that absent is Washington? Lobbyists and special interests control the town that much? The Obamacare debacle sure pointed that out. . "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Enough of that!

[Art in Idaho]

I would point out that us birthers new of the 20th before the election, The Unqualified President, and had contacted our representative before the electoral count and informed them of the need to object. No one would commit. You need one from each body.

Prescient insight you had. I was just finding out a lot about Obama in October, 2008, and went into panic mode trying to tell everyone I knew. I remember how down I was that no one objected and Cheney did nothing.

[Art in Idaho]

I think the practical avenue for all patriotic Americans is to demand that the DNC, when presenting the "Official Certification of Nomination" for the 50 states in 2012, include the sentence deleted from previous certifications:

". . 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."

If that sentence is not in the 2012 Official Certification of Nomination, each American Patriot should demand Obama not be on the ballot.

If it is included in the Official Certification of Nomination, then we need to demand proof. Show us the Long Form Birth Certificate or you're not on the ballot.

Failure to put the required sentence in and/or failure to produce the LFBC is evidence of "failing to qualify" and Obama can't run for office.

One other thought: How do we "communicate our demand" to the DNC preemptively? Writing them will produce no response or a form letter. Anyone have any "juice" with the DNC? Or should this be done legally - attorneys "presenting" them our demand?

[Baynative]

I think step one is to get an answer from Nancy Pelosi about her signing of two certifications of candidacy, one of which had been purposely altered to eliminate the eligibility clause. In all manner of correctness this should be done under oath.