Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.
This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became "Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.
The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.
Really! Only the dumbest reading of the Hawaiian officials document could be construed to mean anything other than I have said.
The burden of proof is on the applicant for the job, not the employer. If certain credentials are absolutely required, and questions arise that raise a reasonable suspicion that the applicant lied about possessing them, it is up to the applicant to clear the air.
I think efforts to overturn a clear-cut democratic election based on flimsy evidence, after the election has happened, would destroy our elections process and put incredible power in the hands of the judiciary. I think I’ve summed up my arguments pretty well; I didn’t come here to throw insults around.
Baloney. You claimed that this official said something that they didn’t say. Something that is central to this controversy. Do you work for the mainstream media or something?
He *has* cleared the air - by winning the election!
“Is the Keyes case before the Supreme Court?”
No sir, I don’t believe it is yet!
E.V. should know more.
STE=Q
As an exposed liar that you are, I would think you would know better than to dig your stinkhole deeper.
Obtuse is when you take a direct statement by a state official and try to read a lot of meaning into what wasn't said. It's actually a huge indicator of a conspiracy theory.
E.V.
I think CharacterCounts may be sincere, here.
Maybe he just needs to study this issue some more.
STE=Q
The clear provisions of the Constitution are not negotiable. Ignoring those provisions will do far more damage to our "elections process" than anything else possibly could.
And the longer Obama stonewalls on releasing his birth certificate, the greater the potential for damage to our form of government.
If a person is born in a hospital, the hospital transmits the information to the state department of health and a birth certificate is created.
If a person is born abroad, the original foreign birth certificate must be taken to the department of health in the state where the birth is being registered.
The original foreign birth certificate is stored at the department of health, which produces a “Certification of Live Birth.”
Again you are just making things up from thin air!
How clever of you to have weeded me out.
Now that I have been discovered it is pointless to talk about it anymore.
Have a good night.
Ah. "Might makes right."
American republican constitutional self-government was the antidote to that form of governement.
And if he's not a natural born citizen, he "won" by fraud.
I never said you were a mole. I asked if you worked for the media, since you added a bit of untruth to this discussion that is IDENTICAL to the untruth that many members of that media are currently attempting to foist on the American people. Get it?
“I think efforts to overturn a clear-cut democratic election ...” Well, you just nailed the last spike into your identity, proving beyond a doubt that you haven’t a clue what law and the Constitution mean to a Democratic Republic. BTW, where do you live? I want to steal your vehicle and by your reasoning if I succeed in getting it away then you have no claim to it any longer. Bwahahahahaha
I think if you would read the Keyes’ suit you would learn a lot about this issue.
If you argue every point for the sake of argument you are wasting our time and perhaps you should go to a more welcoming thread on FR.
STE=Q
***
Beg Pardon ... THIS is what SCOTUS has said ...
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter ...”
Bush v. Gore (00-949)
Note: Five of the current SCOTUS justices (Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, and Thoms) concurred with this opinion. Presumably, Alito and Roberts would too.
The OPERATIVE phrase is:
” ... the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental ...”
Part of the prescribed method in New Jersey (and the basis of Donofrio’s case) is:
New Jersey Statutes, Title 19: Elections
19:13-22. Secretary of State; statement to county clerks of nominations; vacancies
The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election. This statement, in addition to the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, if any such have been included in any such certificate or petition filed with him, shall contain the names and residences of all other candidates, the offices for which they are respectively nominated, and the names of the parties by which or the political appellation under which they are respectively nominated. Candidates nominated directly by petition, without distinctive political appellation, shall be certified as independent candidates. Similar statements shall be made, certified and forwarded, when vacancies are filled subsequently, according to law.
Amended by L.1942, c. 50, p. 280, s. 6; L.1948, c. 2, p. 39, s. 20; L.1977, c. 431, s. 2, eff. Feb. 28, 1978.
One Roger Calero, the Socialist Party candidate, was allowed on the ballot and serves as prima facie evidence that the New Jersey Secretary of State DID NOT CERTIFY that he was eligible.
Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua ... five OTHER states discovered this and kept him OFF the ballot.
The existence of one ineligible candidate on the ballot necessarily calls into question the eligibility of ALL of the other candidates on the ballot.
THIS IS THE BASIS OF DONOFRIO'S CASE ...
Post 689 relates back to an earlier post wherein I said “as far as I know.” Sorry, I forgot to include that language in my second iteration. If that is the process, then I stand corrected and thank you for the information.
Is that sufficient?
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.