Posted on 10/07/2008 3:09:15 AM PDT by Hang'emAll
As I understand it, it’s the sec. of state for each state to determine the eligibility of candidates filing to appear on the ballot.
Then it's the party's responsibility to set the standards of proof, isn't it? So far as the Democrats are concerned Obama meets all the qualifications. Can anyone prove otherwise?
Have you even read the complaint?
He’s the representative from Samoa, U.S. Congressman Eni Faleomavaega. You can find the details at the Texasdarlin blog. See:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-is-indonesian/
Hope that the above helps.
The thing that irks me is that the information about Obama not receiving a SC had an exact date in August. Just can’t remember the poster’s name!
Look at this beautiful post from another thread:
“Barack Obama promotes himself as the candidate for change. Well, he does want change. He wants the rules to apply to other people and not to himself,” Berg said. “We’re going to win this one way or another. I have a good feeling. We’re going to make a little history with Obama, and I want to be there when they handcuff him.”
Obama is such a “dirty” candidate. And our press is right there, abetting him.
“As I understand it, it’s the sec. of state for each state to determine the eligibility of candidates filing to appear on the ballot.”
That may be true, but I think it’s the responsibility of each states legislature to set the eligibility to get on the state ballot.
It seems to me neither party wants to raise that bar.
I'm sure. Prior to this Philip Berg was trying to have George Bush and Dick Cheney indicted on criminal charges stemming from their part in the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent coverups. Were you so sure of his legal competence then?
Have you even read the complaint?
I read the original one. The one where he requested the court order Obama to comply by September 31.
The one that I posted is from 8/22.
“Then it’s the party’s responsibility to set the standards of proof, isn’t it? So far as the Democrats are concerned Obama meets all the qualifications. Can anyone prove otherwise? “
I think that is exactly right. It seems to me it’s the party’s responsibility through each states legislature to set the standards to get on the states ballots. ...and neither party is motivated to change.
We can all speculate what the official procedure should be. But the fact of the matter is that there is none.
So what? If you’re looking for an argument, you posted to the wrong person. Not interested. I’ve talked to you before and you always argue left and abrasively. Not in the mood.........
Really? I always thought you took the lib view yourself. Still, if being conservative means having to sign on to lame conspiracy theories and twist the law to fit your agenda then maybe I'm not conservative after all. At least by your definition.
I have not speculated what the procedure should be, I’m stating what I think they currently are.
I know the ballot-access laws for most states have a very low threshold for both the Republicans and the Democrats. It’s the third party where the laws get more difficult. R’s and D’s are a shoe in as long as they are nominated at the party’s state conventions.
Both parties want it harder for a third party to get on the ballot and easier for their candidate.
Now to speculate what the official procedure should be. IMHO if one of the early primary states set the qualifications very high (ie. Produce BC etc.) then the whole process would change and be accountable.
Would you still want him to be sworn in???
A little late to the party, eh? We’ve been saying that for months.
Then he wouldnt be president...Biden would be.
I just don’t know what to think. What would be the advantage of sitting on his BC if he has one? Why drag this out? Cui Bono?
And if he doesn’t have one, doesn’t he realize the mayhem and turmoil he will cast this country into by either being DQd before the election or deposed after?
His narcissism is so huge he doesn’t care what happens?
How is that patriotic?
(hint, tx: it ain’t. He really wants America destroyed.)
No requirement for proof of citizenship although natural born citizenship is a requirement (paraphrasing Non-sequitur) - ok, now we know how you think.
Try some common sense.
I am relatively certain that the secretaries of state of the individual states are required to certify that the candidates that they place on the ballot are eligible to be there and to hold office should the candidate win. Prudence, prevailing state and federal law, and common sense would dicatate how each secretary could satisfy their obligation. Demanding state certified proof of citizenship would be included as a reasonable requirement.
3
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.