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

To: kabar

That’s not entirely true, IMO.

There’s no requirement that the president prove with documentation evidence that he is natural born. There couldn’t be because there was no such thing as a birth certificate when the original 13 colonies were founded.

Also, an election is not one national election. There are 50 separate elections. Each state has a person elected to a position with the responsibility of “certifying” that each name to be put on the ballot is in fact qualified to be there. Once that person signs off on it, that name is legal to be on that ballot.

In my opinion, you would need to prove that each of these 50 election certifying individuals signed off on Obama’s name knowing that he is not qualified to be on the ballot or that they displayed gross negligence in obtaining some kind of assurance, before you could go anywhere with this. But remember, a birth certificate is not required. Maybe all that is required is that a relative give’s his/her word on obama’s behalf.

OR

get a case to the supreme court and force them to make a ruling.


439 posted on 05/17/2012 2:05:33 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]


To: mamelukesabre
"There’s no requirement that the president prove with documentation evidence that he is natural born."

Yes there is. It's called the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3

701 posted on 05/17/2012 9:36:46 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | 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