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

To: nathanbedford

“There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified”

I’ve been following the “birth certificate issue” from the time it first became known, but frankly, I don’t think any actions that have been taken up to this point are going to prevent Obama from assuming the office of the presidency.

The operative phrase, however, is “up to this point”. I don’t believe that the matter will be settled on January 20th, or at any time in the future until the facts are revealed and the original birth certificate is unsealed for all to see.

However, our defeat on this issue _today_ should not preclude us from taking action that may bring us victory at a later date. And here’s what I think could be done:

There are still conservative states with majority-conservative legislatures. I propose that between now and 2012, conservatives should concentrate their efforts on or two (or possibly more) states in attempting to pass laws governing the eligibility of presidential candidates, insofar as their qualifications to be candidates in those states is concerned. That is to say, such laws should mandate that the Secretary of State should not permit a presidential candidate (or that candidate’s electors) to be on the ballot unless and until sufficient evidence has been provided to confirm that that candidate meets all Constitutional qualifications to BE a candidate for president, including (but not limited to) the furnishing of an original copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.

Of course, this does nothing for the person who will be inagurated on January 20, 2009. But once these laws are on the books, if that same person wishes to appear on these states’ ballots in 2012, he will be required to comply with specific state laws regarding elibility for office.

I think my proposal is logical and could be reasonably expected to pass, at least in one conservative state. Once done, it would change the game plan for 2012.

- John


92 posted on 12/07/2008 7:14:21 PM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Fishrrman
I like your proposal are much.


104 posted on 12/07/2008 11:21:45 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

To: Fishrrman

“So Obama won.
He fought all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid showing his birth certificate.
Anyone else, for any other job, and that person would be called a nutcase to spend so much money, to avoid such a simple task.
Clearly its over, but to anyone who thinks about this in a critical manner, its clear that he had a terrible secret to hide.”

I’ve been following the “birth certificate issue” from the time it first became known, but frankly, I don’t think any actions that have been taken up to this point are going to prevent Obama from assuming the office of the presidency.

The operative phrase, however, is “up to this point”. I don’t believe that the matter will be settled on January 20th, or at any time in the future until the facts are revealed and the original birth certificate is unsealed for all to see.

However, our defeat on this issue _today_ should not preclude us from taking action that may bring us victory at a later date. And here’s what I think could be done:

There are still conservative states with majority-conservative legislatures. I propose that between now and 2012, conservatives should concentrate their efforts on or two (or possibly more) states in attempting to pass laws governing the eligibility of presidential candidates, insofar as their qualifications to be candidates in those states is concerned. That is to say, such laws should mandate that the Secretary of State should not permit a presidential candidate (or that candidate’s electors) to be on the ballot unless and until sufficient evidence has been provided to confirm that that candidate meets all Constitutional qualifications to BE a candidate for president, including (but not limited to) the furnishing of an original copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.

Of course, this does nothing to stop the person who will be inagurated on January 20, 2009 from assuming office. But once these new laws are on the books, if that same person wishes to appear on these states’ ballots again in 2012, he will be required to comply with new and specific state laws establishing elibility for office.

I think my proposal is logical and could be reasonably expected to pass, at least in one conservative state. Once done, it would change the game plan for 2012.

- John


107 posted on 12/08/2008 7:27:32 AM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

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