Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who has Standing to Challenge a Dubious Citizen Seeking the Presidency?
ML/NJ

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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: antichrist; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizen; constitution; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Congressman Billybob

Ping for a constitutional lawyer.


21 posted on 06/25/2008 11:12:52 AM PDT by Publius (Another Republican for Obama -- NOT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


22 posted on 06/25/2008 11:19:30 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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.


23 posted on 06/25/2008 11:46:51 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FFranco

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.


24 posted on 06/25/2008 11:48:16 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The Obama camp want you to make a big deal out of this, so that two days before the election they can present his actual birth certificate and prove us to be a bunch of idiots.

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

25 posted on 06/25/2008 3:03:29 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
But the general election is governed by the Constitution; it SHOULD be the case that the FEC certifies eligibility before putting anyone's name on the ballot.

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

26 posted on 06/25/2008 3:17:06 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
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.

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.

27 posted on 06/26/2008 4:25:23 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
this animated gif image goes back and forth between obama's birth certificate and a real birth certificate. note the missing seal, the blacked out certificate number and the differences along the edges of the seal. in order to show detail this is a high mg download.

this writer examines the writing in detail and shows why much of the writing on obama's birth certificate was photo shopped.

This is a google search of birth certificate obama. This story is steadily making its way up the info food chain.

This link gives the growing list of posts at free republic on obama's birth certificate.
28 posted on 06/28/2008 3:31:42 PM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: ml/nj

There’s a broad discussion of legal standing in the 2006 ruling on Tom Delay’s “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!


30 posted on 10/25/2008 5:51:18 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Your pdf is from 2006. I'm not going to read it all. Do you have any idea when the first time was that some judge here and/or in England said to a plaintiff in effect, "I don't care whether your complaint has any merit or not, because I will not allow you to present your argument."

ML/NJ

31 posted on 10/25/2008 6:12:39 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 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...


32 posted on 10/25/2008 6:53:55 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ricki21092
You are responding to something I wrote four months ago in June.

Don't you have anything better to do?

33 posted on 10/25/2008 8:08:04 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Public policy should never become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. -- Ike Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The reason he is responding now is because I linked this thread on another one concerning the decision by a District Court that Philip Berg does not have standing to challenge Obama's Constitutional eligibility to become President of the United States. If you do not think this is an important issue I feel sorry for you. I think it could lead to the unraveling of law here in the United States, which wouldn't be nice for your family or mine.

ML/NJ

34 posted on 10/26/2008 5:53:47 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I guess you don't have anything better to do either.
35 posted on 10/26/2008 6:11:12 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Public policy should never become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. -- Ike Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
You're nearly right. I don't have anything more important to do.

ML/NJ

36 posted on 10/26/2008 6:34:38 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Wow!

You know how to change the course of the election!

How did you get so smart?

37 posted on 10/26/2008 6:40:14 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Public policy should never become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. -- Ike Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Who has Standing to Challenge a Dubious Citizen Seeking the Presidency?

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.

38 posted on 10/26/2008 6:43:28 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered...the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Note that the PLACE of Obama’s birth is irrelevant, according to this argument.

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.

39 posted on 10/26/2008 6:45:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
But the general election is governed by the Constitution; it SHOULD be the case that the FEC certifies eligibility before putting anyone's name on the ballot.

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.

40 posted on 10/26/2008 6:49:55 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered...the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson