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...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ok...So?...Which vital records? Were they records filed by Obama **himself**.
Also...NO “vital record” since the dawn of this nation has ever declared a person was “natural born”. “Natural born” does not exist on anyone's birth “vital record”. I would bet my entire 401k on that.
So?...Dr. Fukino is making a legal judgement as (what?),...a physician? Huh? Her **legal** opinion is no more valid than mine.
Sorry...Dr. Fukino is deliberately obfuscating.
If Dr. Fukino has said, “I examined the long form birth certificate. The long form certificate states Obama was born in Hawaii in the city of XXX. His father was XXX and his mother XXX.”, then that would mean something.
If he committed perjury, that oath would be invalid, and he would not be president. No oath, means not being president.
It is frustrating, but it seems unlikely that any citizen will have the standing to challenge Obama’s legitimacy.
It probably didn't occur to our Founding Fathers that anyone would perjure their way into the office of president. As I have posted previously, our system of government depends upon honest good will. If there is no honest good will, it will be impossible to write laws tight enough to corral evil.
I pray that repentance and revival will spread through the land. If it doesn't we will be slaves.