Do electoral commissions or Secretary's of State actually do that? Or do they just accept and file the paperwork?
I think there is little doubt they should certify legitimate eligibility, but AFAIK no state actually gives any entity involved in the process the power to do so.
IOW, I do not believe there is any person or group in any state authorized to unilaterally disqualify a presidential candidate as ineligible. Not even after the last four years. Numerous efforts were made to do so in various states, and every one was voted down by the legislature.
And do we really want there to be? Do we want a GOP candidate ruled ineligible by a CT commission, requiring an extended court case to have the ruling overturned?
After being pressured by a vocal group of constituents, AZ SOS Ken Bennett did the right thing and legally requested a verification of birth facts for Barack Obama, which is allowable by Hawaii law for government agencies who need to verify facts in order to maintain lists or to render services to somebody. The HDOH stalled for months, trying to claim Bennett was not qualified to receive a verification. Bennett, receiving constant pressure from his constituents and wanting the issue to go away, went to the news media saying that he might have to keep Obama off the ballot because Hawaii wouldn’t verify his birth facts.
The pressure succeeded in getting Hawaii to respond to Bennett by sending a verification, but though the law required the HDOH to verify everything submitted that they could certify as legally true, they STILL did not verify any submitted birth facts for Obama. They verified that they have a birth certificate for Obama and that the claims that are on the White House BC image “match” the record on file, but would NOT certify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” - thus confirming that it is NOT.
Responding to a later request by KS SOS Chris Kobach, the HDOH similarly confirmed that the claims on the WH BC image “match” the original record but would NOT certify that the information contained in the WH image is “identical to” the information in the original record - so whatever they mean by “match”, it is NOT “identical to”.
So the legal process worked. Two SOS’s were able to find out from the HDOH whether they have a legally valid birth certificate for Obama and whether Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. The HDOH’s legal answer was no, they could not verify any of that because they have no legally valid record. It was answered according to the requirements of the governing Hawaii statute - only verifying the things that could be verified.
But the media reported the exact opposite, failing to look at what was actually submitted to registrar Alvin Onaka and failing to consider the law that governed Onaka’s response. Bennett, fearing ridicule from the media and simply wanting the issue to go away, said he would allow Obama on the ballot.
Attorney Larry Klayman sent a letter to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer, pointing out that HI registrar Onaka had confirmed that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid and that there is thus nobody in America who can lawfully certify that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, since there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama absent a legally valid BC. It would be subornation of perjury to counsel anybody to sign a certification for Barack Obama. That letter was delivered to Bauer’s office by courier at 2:27pm EDT 4 days before the DNC Convention began. The members of the DNC Executive Committee were all sent carbon copies of the letter as well, which were received at their offices the day the Convention began.
Bauer had Villaigarosa and Germond sign the certification anyway, suborning perjury. He submitted what he knew to be a perjurious Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) to nearly every Secretary of State within a day of the perjurious document being signed
Every state SOS, state dem party chair, and state AG received a carbon copy of the letter to Bauer as well. They also received a letter from a group of concerned citizens including Tom Ballantyne, Terry Lakin (formerly Lt Col Lakin, who spent 6 months in jail because he refused to obey orders that we now know were not lawful), CMDR Charles Kerchner (retired), and Lawrence Sellin (retired Spec Ops) pointing out their lawful duties.
And the state SOS’s and AG’s also received a letter from me, pointing out that the evidence previously used to presume that Obama is eligible... actually doesn’t contradict Onaka’s disclosure that Obama’s BC is legally non-valid - particularly the 1960-64 birth index, which has been proven to contain names from legally non-valid BC’s. My letter pointed out that any certification they received would immediately be known as fraudulent, and allowing a fraudulent OCON to be used to commit election fraud would make them complicit in the crime.
EVERY SOS BLEW THIS OFF. Some wrote back to me saying that the law doesn’t allow them to disqualify a candidate or to require proof of anything - totally sidestepping what I had just said to them about it being PUBLICLY KNOWN ALREADY THAT ANY OCON WOULD HAVE TO BE PERJURIOUS AND FRAUDULENT. It wasn’t an issue of needing more information; it was about already having it legally confirmed that the OCON was fraudulent.
I spent about 45 minutes on the phone with the legal counsel for NE SOS John Gale. I was told that even if Germond, Villaigarosa, and Bauer were sitting in jail convicted of perjury and fraud for that OCON, the SOS would still have to put Obama’s name on the ballot because NE law doesn’t say that the OCON submitted has to be LAWFUL (non-perjurious and non-fraudulent).
IOW, our system allows KNOWN FRAUD AND PERJURY to be effective in getting a name on the ballot.
I have yet to see whether the certifications for medical licenses, etc specifically say that documents have to be LAWFUL (non-perjurious and non-fraudulent). If this is the standard applied across-the-board, then every law requiring paperwork is gutless unless it specifically states that perjurious and fraudulent documents will be rejected.
Like I’ve been saying for a long time, this is about the rule of law. We don’t have it in the United States - at all. Every Secretary of State in the country knows that Obama’s Hawaii BC is non-valid and Obama cannot be certified as eligible. EVERY ONE OF THEM ACCEPTED WHAT THEY KNEW WAS A FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS OCON.
I think there is little doubt they should certify legitimate eligibility, but AFAIK no state actually gives any entity involved in the process the power to do so>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In all states, that duty is left to the executive officers of the political party of the candidate in question.They are bound to follow Article II of the constitution but there is no other statute compelling them to do so.In these modern times, it is rare, but these executive officers are directly bound by Article II.