You have cut to the chase. There is ample historic precedent for one state harboring another state's criminals. It is a very murky area of the law, of which Team Obama is making excellent use.
You and I both know that Obama and his handlers have acted with "malice aforethought." Easy to know. Tough to prove, as quite a few groups and their attorneys, good and bad, have found out.
Butter, our only chance during the present Constitutional Crisis is that 1 (one) State Official empowered to safeguard his or her state's ballot, acts unilaterally and exercises the power given to the office by that state's constitution.
The only way to put the burden of proof on Team Obama is to cast them as the plaintiffs in the matter. That way, if a court rejected the case on "standing," etc., the ruling of the state's authority would remain and Obama would remain off the ballot in that state.
More important, Obama must not only have doubt cast upon his constitutional legitimacy, he must resoundingly lose the next election in those states (probably all of them!) in which he is permitted to remain on the ballot.
Perhaps after he is voted out of office, our SCOTUS will find the courage to review Article II and offer a definitive ruling that follows the traditional view.
At this moment, to repeat, there has to be one state official somewhere that says, "No. The man is not a Natural Born Citizen." One official, one courageous patriot, could collapse this absurd house of cards.
That’s definitely what needs to happen. If the GA judge is a set-up he’ll only ask for a paper copy of a BC, Hawaii will certify a copy of their forgery, and the judge will say Obama’s name has to be put on the ballot.
As long as the judiciary can be corrupted Obama wil make sure it is corrupted. That’s why there were specific measures we were going to amend the Nebraska eligibility bill to contain - specifically 1) allowing the public to view the documentation for eligibility; 2) allowing any person to challenge the SOS’s decision and/or whether the requirements of the law were met by the SOS; and 3) specific authorization for anybody who challenged eligibility to get an audit of the records offered (to see the computer and paper trail for that record, which the inspector general for HHS said is the only way to check the credibility of a vital record).
The reason for all that is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the way to hold both the SOS and the judge accountable is by allowing the PUBLIC to see what their decision is based on and to require further investigation in a COURT OF LAW if it is warranted (NOT a mere Commission where political hacks make a decision and nobody can do anything about it. Of course, we’ve seen plenty of judges that have acted as political hacks also...).
If there is a dispute between 2 states, doesn’t that move the case into the federal courts? Hawaii would have to honor a federal judge’s order or subpoena, wouldn’t they?
Dang. The murder of Judge John Roll a year ago (shortly after Abercrombie had expressed public dismay over the damage the only known eligibility bill - Arizona’s - could do to Obama) was a pre-emptive strike. He’s probably the only judge in the 9th Circuit that had both a brain and a soul, and his murder ensured he would be replaced by somebody of Obama’s choosing.
Just one other thing (for now anyway. lol): During the last election George Soros put special emphasis on trying to get corruptocrats elected as Secretaries of State. Do we know how he fared with that?
He knew where the next battle would be.
Unfortunately, Nebraska’s SOS is John Gale - who told me in 2008 that the media would never let an ineligible person get onto the ballot. When our officials are that naive and just plain stupid, the country is in big, big trouble. I hope every state in the country beats Nebraska on the quality of their SOS.
Did you notice the strategy of the Obama legal team in GA? They claimed that since the law didn’t specifically mention presidential candidates, the law requiring ALL candidates to be qualified for their position doesn’t include President. That’s the same trick they’re going to pull on the SOS’s. They’re going to say that if the law doesn’t specifically REQUIRE this or that document, then the SOS isn’t authorized to check that document.
To which argument I say, “Show me where Congress-critters are specifically authorized to wipe their behinds while Congress is in session. If it’s not specifically authorized, then they can’t do it. You want to live by that standard, fine! Let’s live by that standard! Anything not specifically enumerated as a power in the statutes is forbidden. If the statute doesn’t say you can open the door, you can’t open the door. If the statute doesn’t say you can wear pants and a shirt, you can’t wear pants and a shirt. Don’t even THINK about having a notebook in front of you to write on... etc ad nauseum.”
That’s the level of absurdity these Obama lawyers operate at. Lilliputians.