Posted on 12/03/2008 3:34:41 PM PST by fightinJAG
Do you hire folks who can't provide documented proof that they possess the credentials that are absolute requirements for the position?
There are laws requiring them to provide me that information. There is no law I'm aware of requiring a presidential candidate provide that information to you or me.
I just heard the guy behind this lawsuit tomorrow is a democrat and known for fraud and such, I think we are being setup as dummies?
I want to be your lawn service provider...you want to see my insurance and bonding before you hire me. I show you a business card from an insurance carrier. I don't need to show you anything else - trust me, I know you want to see a detailed policy...I have it. Call my secretary and she'll tell ya!
DENIED
Article II, the U.S. Constitution
"This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
Article VI, the U.S. Constitution
Very good. Now point out the procedure established by law for presidential candidates to establish their eligibility. Who is tasked with checking the credentials and where and how is it done.
Every elected official, every judge, every presidential elector, has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I’ve already shown you the simple words of that document...words which any average grammar school student can understand.
If he won’t show his credentials which prove he meets the constitutional requirement in question, all of the above will be in breach of their sworn oath if they make him President anyway.
Nonsense.
His status under Indonesian law is irrelevant. Unless someone can show that he voluntarily renounced his US citizenship, Indonesia's ban on dual citizenship is meaningless here.
One other thing: Obama signed documents in all the states swearing that he meets the constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States.
That assertion has been called into reasonable question.
It is well within the purview of those charged with overseeing such things to seek proof that Mr. Obama did not perjure himself.
Where are the Republican Secretaries of State? Where are the Republican Attorneys General?
Are they no longer the loyal opposition?
Are they no longer loyal to the Constitution first?
Why is it "nonsense"?
“Very good. Now point out the procedure established by law for presidential candidates to establish their eligibility.”
Of course, O was required at each State primary filing to certify he is natural born. In many states that certification is informal and rests on the honor and integrity of the candidate. If he is not eligible, however, and among other things, he falsely certified.
Nonetheless, if an unqualified candidate happens to slip through the procedure, 3 USC 15 provides O with the procedure to establish his eligibility.
By that statute, any Republican Senator and Representative (who takes seriously their oath to defend the Constitution) may present an objection on Jan 8 to the counting of O’s electoral votes, based on the assertion he is not natural born. Obviously, it would be far more effective if they were to base the objection on proof O was born elsewhere. High ranking Republicans have access to the government records that contain such proof if, in fact, O is not natural born.
In the world we like to think we live in, O’s response to such an objection would either be a) present evidence he is natural born, or b) to step aside (and face possible criminal charges).
A Constitutional “difficulty” will arise (there is no basis for a crisis) if a Dem-controlled Congress - one apparently not willing to defend the Constitution - finds, in essence, that it doesn’t matter whether he is natural born and accepts his votes for the Presidency.
Your thoughts?
I’m still waiting to hear why my comments here are “nonsense” in your opinion. I hope you can find time to set me straight at some point.
Because you have failed to show what law tasks what agency or individual with checking the credentials. Your claim that failure to demand to see Obama's birth certificate on the part of every judge and every presidential elector is what's nonsense. Otherwise, they've been derelict in every presidential election because they've failed to do so every time.
Could that be why Gov Lingle did not find it prudent to travel to Zer0's Gov Convention?
We have had no direct record of his birth, yet. Except that translated testimony of Obama's Kenyan grandmother who says she was present at his birth in Kenya.
When there are reasonable questions as to birth circumstance they should be investigated, checked out, verified.
To deny that a suspicious birth circumstance be investigated to some depth because the majority of candidates have no such suspicious circumstance is foolish. It's like saying we should not investigate a fire alarm going off, because most of the time the alarm is not going off and in those times we aren't actively looking a for fire. It's silly.
“Could that be why Gov Lingle did not find it prudent to travel to Zer0’s Gov Convention?”
Great thought! I hadn’t connected those dots. Hope you are correct.
This is certainly the time for new, aspiring Republicans to step forward.
The closest I came to Gov Lingle was that she sealed the records because of concern for, or evidence of, a Sandy Burlar type of operation.
It is the secretary of state in each individual state who has the responsibility to verify eligibility. That’s why Donofrio sued Wells, who was the SoS for his state.
Their time for doing their job properly is long past. That’s why these cases are winding their way to the Supreme Court.
You are correct, of course. But that point may now represent nothing more than a lost opportunity.
It is entirely possible the USSC may agree there was a procedural defect, but take no action because there is a remedy provided by statute.
As a matter of fact, many believe the USSC has too often involved itself in matters concerning state and federal legislation and has become, in essence, an unelected Supreme Legislature.
What is important, I think, is that Republicans prepare to effectively exercise the statutory remedy if the courts do not provide adequate relief by no later than Jan 8.
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.