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

To: Star Traveler
It’s obvious to anyone to see that there is *no legal requirement* for a candidate to produce his birth certificate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Constitution lays out the requirements plainly. Sadly, no one is taking responsibility for enforcing it. Frustrating but true. The birthers ( of which I am a proud member) have been sounding the alarm since the beginning of the primaries. The result: Nothing!

435 posted on 08/01/2009 9:33:11 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies ]


To: wintertime

You said — The Constitution lays out the requirements plainly. Sadly, no one is taking responsibility for enforcing it. Frustrating but true.

It’s a slight bit different that you say. I mean by that... the Constitution says what the candidate must *be* and then it’s up to the officials to carry out the “methodology” of determining that.

Now, the conflict here is that people here have said that they want a “methodology” of “seeing the birth certificate” while the officials have simply (and with all candidates in the past) had them sign and swear an oath they are *are* what the Constitution says that they must *be* — and that is their “methodology”...

The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...

And here’s the Constitution for you...., the *basics* of the Constitution on this qualifications issue...

And yes, there is a Constitution, it’s to follow — and here is what it says, in regards to qualifications. The Constitution says that a candidate must be the following in order to qualify for the office. The candidate must ...

*be* 35 years or older
*be* a resident 14 years or more
*be* a natural born citizen

And Obama has sworn under oath that he *is* (as the Constitution says he must *be*)...

It does not say what is necessary to show it, prove it or what any means for “vetting” is. That’s up to the states themselves to vet and make sure that the candidates meet the qualifications.

And what they have done is sworn an oath that they are qualified..., Obama has, the other candidates have and they have in the past...

And in addition the State of Hawaii says that he *is* exactly what the Constitution says he must *be*...

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

This shows that there is no Constitutional issue or question. So, when there is no Constitutional issue at problem here with the Qualifications for office, why would the Supreme Court get involved? Which is why they didn’t get involved.

And if you want to get Obama to show his birth certificate, you’re going to have to get a state law to that effect, which is what I’ve been proposing since the election.

And you’ll notice that no one is saying to ignore the Constitution...


437 posted on 08/01/2009 9:37:52 PM PDT by Star Traveler (The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | 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