Posted on 06/25/2008 9:34:08 AM PDT by ml/nj
I don't know. I'm asking. IANAL.
But it seems to me that there are quite a few problems or questions concerning how a legal challenge could be made to prevent a non-natural-citizen from assuming the Presidency. One of these problems is that Constitutionally at least, no one is actually a candidate for the Presidency. The people that we vote for in November are electors. To be sure, these electors are usually pledged to vote for a specific person, but legally the electors are not bound by their respective pledges. Sometime in December the electors vote in secret in their respective State capitals and then these votes are opened and tallied by Congress in January. So January seems to me the first time that a challenge could be made. Obviously the tallier of the votes could demand proof of natural citizenship and just not tally votes in the absence of such proof for someone receiving a vote or votes. But the tallier might not do that.
Usually in order to challenge something in a court one has to have "standing." My understanding is that in order to gain standing one has to claim some sort of damage. Maybe I'm wrong about this. But it would be hard for any individual to claim that he had been damaged by a non-natural-citizen who had assumed the Presidency, let alone such a person whose assumption would still be in the future.
Finally I assume that if someone did have standing to bring such a case, that the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction but of this I am by no means certain.
The Democrats seem to have a way of turning a process that has worked well for 200+ years into a circus. If Obama wins the election it would seem to me that he should be able to be forced to prove that he is eligible to assume the Presidency. I am wondering what course this process might take.
ML/NJ
Ping for a constitutional lawyer.
I think you’re right. Doesn’t the 14th ammendment make the children of those subject to US jurisdiction citizens? His mother was, indubitably, a citizen subject to US jurisdiction (unless she renounced her citizenship). Focusing on this is, in my estimation, a mistake.
Thank you.
Okay. So—so far, Obama has NOT produced indubitable evidence that he was born in the U.S. The “certification of birth” looks highly dubious.
Thank you.
Okay. Soso far, Obama has NOT produced indubitable evidence that he was born in the U.S. The certification of birth looks highly dubious.
Maybe. But that doesn't answer my question.
I do believe he is a US citizen by birth and eligible to assume the office. But I believed a lot of things about Obama in February that have since been demonstrated to be false. (Don't get me wrong. I never thought about supporting him. I just thought he was a baggage free version of the Commodities Scam Queen.)
ML/NJ
I address your comment here but I am also addressing the comments of several other respondents.
The general election is governed to some extent by the Constitution, but not the way you apparently think it is. The States are in charge. The States don't even have to have elections for the electors for President if they choose not to. Individual States are free to appoint electors or decide them by a lottery. The FEC is a (probably unconstitutional) creation of Congress whose charter is to see that the elections the States hold are "fair" and that no one who the Federales think should be allowed to vote is denied that opportunity.
Obama's name may be on the ballot when people vote but no one is actually casting a for Obama. Obama, even if ineligible for the Presidency, is free to support these electors. The question I raised is what would happen if the electors voted in the majority for someone who is ineligible, and his election were certified by Congress. You, and others here, have ignored this as if the entire Electoral College system were meaningless. It's not, to some of us.
ML/NJ
I said "SHOULD", meaning that's the way I think it ought to be - that the FEC, or some other federal agency, should have the authority and the obligation to certify that anybody on the ballot is eligible for the office they seek. Your scenario is out and out fraud, and should be prevented, not retroactively corrected.
I didn't mean to imply the Electoral College was meaningless. But to allow them to go through a charade, only to find out it could have been prevented by a background check is damaging.
Theres a broad discussion of legal standing in the 2006 ruling on Tom Delays qualification case. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-50812-CV0.wpd.pdf
Of course, by definition, any citizen in a republic would have standing. However the burden of proof may be on the accuser.
If Obama is found ineligible I’d be surprised if the Democrat Party wasn’t found negligent and financially liable to it’s donors LOL!
ML/NJ
The PDF discusses the Topic I thought you were interested in.
I’d guess that the requirement to have standing is probably as old as civil law...
Don't you have anything better to do?
ML/NJ
ML/NJ
You know how to change the course of the election!
How did you get so smart?
1) The members of the Electoral College.
2) The special Joint Session of Congress which counts the votes.
3) The Chief Justice of the United States, at the point of administering the oath.
If all three of these safeguards fail, then the fourth element - the People of the United States - have a duty to act which is clearly spelled out in the Declaration.
Yes it is, according to the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The only exception are children born to foreign diplomats and the like.
Oh, man! Where to begin?
The Constitution does not authorize or provide for a "general election". The STATES are authorized to set up a mechanism (more precisely, the state legislatures are so authorized) to choose Electors. It just so happens that all 50 state legislatures have chosen to use a popular vote to choose their Electors, they are not required to do so.
Where in the Constitution do you find authority for something called a "Federal Election Commission"? The idea that the Federal fox is "in charge" of the electoral henhouse, while very popular around here, is repugnant to the Constitution, and the FEC has no authority which any patriot is bound to respect.
The check on Obama's illegitimacy is the People, by any means necessary. If that is insufficient, we are lost and no phony commissions or pretended court decisions can save us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.