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.
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.
“Welcome to the party, pal!” John McClane - Diehard
"... 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:
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.
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.
What law is that?
Obama flubbed the “public” oath of office.
0bama opted for the oath of office, “take #2” in private.
Nobody can prove 0bama recited the oath of office
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.
This particular statement is timely. Each candidate has to “qualify” in each State. NJ Appellate Ct. tried to argue that having a mixture of qualifications in the 50 States is not good. They failed to realize that we don’t have federal elections. All our elections are State and each State allows or denies access to their ballots. What idiots.
I feel sorry for this country.
When the highest office in the land is occupied by one who broke the law to get it all compliance is “voluntary”.
. . . . Checking in for a minute. See article, and comments through # 34.
Note SP showed up. Wasn't s/ he told to stay off Eligibility threads? Those people just can't help themselves. Either that, or they are paid operatives.
Good summary, Art in Idaho.
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.