Posted on 10/26/2010 8:51:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
The AIP response to press inquiries this morning:
"We have always maintained that the burden of proof that he possesses the constitutionally required credentials to serve as President rests squarely on Mr. Obama and no one else. For a mere ten dollars, with Barack Obama's assent, the State of Hawaii can and will provide the American people with a copy of his actual long form birth certificate. The fact that Mr. Obama continues to be willing to expend large sums of money, including precious taxpayers' dollars, to prevent the public revelation of such a simple document, has raised serious legitimate questions in the minds of millions of Americans about his qualifications. This is extremely unhealthy for the country, and for the Presidency, to say the least. That's why we applaud the efforts of Alan Keyes and other America's Independent Party leaders in their persistent demand that Barack Obama produce the necessary documents to clear these questions from the public docket, and fervently hope that they will appeal this unwise decision by this particular court."
Tom Hoefling
Chairman, America's Independent Party
tomhoefling@gmail.com
Thank you for your input, Mr. Obama.
Contentless insult noted. Typical birther debating style. You don’t have facts or logic, so you call names.
Obviously if he never qualified to be President he would not qualify for the retirement benefits.
Too say nothing of the multiple criminal election fraud charges he should face
*******************
And the nullity of every bit of legislation signed, every executive order, and every single appointment.
You can't prove a negative, and I've never been stupid enough to try.
Show us the proof that he's constitutionally-qualified. It's not too much to ask.
“Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party...
Schwartzenegger 2012?
Typical birther debating style. You don’t have facts or logic, so you call names.
As he calls me a name.
I might as well call you another one: "hypocrite."
LLS
Schwartzenegger 2012?
----------------------------------------------
McCain 2008? Calero 2008? Jindal 2012?
Yes, this issue is far bigger than Barry.
Absolutely agree and have been making that argument even before the 2009 Joint Session (see my About page).
There was a substantial failure during the JS of every member of Congress, particularly by our Republicans.
On a quick skim, it appears this court addressed the prior removals by a SoS and nonetheless determined there was no basis for an affirmative ministerial duty by the SoS to investigate a candidate's qualifications. (I do not recall at the moment whether Keyes, et al entered a timely and well supported objection at the primary level.)
Initially thought/hoped Keyes had a shot at the USSC, now not sure.
All the poster wrote was "Thank you for your input, Mr. Obama".
So you DO agree that being called "Mr. Obama" is an insult! Thanks for the clarification.
Cleaver 1968?
Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check “””
I believe that Howard Dean KNEW that NObama was not eligible.
He crammed this imposter down our throats.
Dean also needs to be prosecuted for dereliction of his duties as head of the DNC.
One officer of government's failure in their constitutional duties, or the failure of one group of constitutional officers, does not in any way excuse any other officer or group of officers from the discharge of their own sworn duties.
By the way, the California Secretary of State has removed at least one presidential candidate, Eldridge Cleaver, from the ballot before because he did not meet the Constitutional requirements. I believe it was in 1968.
----------------------------------------------------------
"California Judge Ruling in Keyes’ Lawsuit on Obama Qualifications
March 13th, 2009
On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.
The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.
Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old."
Not to mention ...
THOMAS H. MOODIE, 19th Governor of N.D. was popularly elected by the people and sworn into office. He was later removed from office by the state's supreme court after it was determined he was ineligible for that office. Thomas H. Moddie was a usurper of an executive office.
As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed. After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935.It HAS been done and CAN be done again, so long as the political, ethical and moral fortitude is there!
Cleaver 1968?
Indeed. There have been many through history. Romney 1964?
” If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern? “
None whatsoever. His continued occupation of the White House is entirely of our suffereance.
” If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern? “
None whatsoever. His continued occupation of the White House is entirely of our sufferance.
Agree, with emphasis on political fortitude.
And, would add "legal fortitude" if Keyes et al entered a well supported objection to candidate Obama appearing on the California primary ballot within the statutory time period for filing objections.
We have standing to prosecute obama after he leaves office and the dims are out of power. He is only above the law as long as he is the president... not supposed to be that way... but that is reality.
LLS
No problem. With the best or worst algore voice and hand movement: Science is settled, debate is over! /s
We'll see if 0b0z0 dares to run in '12. That's not what Hillary agreed to! LOL
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.