Posted on 07/15/2009 5:25:18 PM PDT by kellynla
Lou Dobbs reported tonight that the Federal Election Commission does not require any proof of citizenship to run for Presidency.
Hopefully the upcoming Revolution will fix all that.
However, there is also the Constitutional Succession rules.
If the Cabinet determined that he was not able to perform his duties -—
Isn't Hillary at least one vote, in that regard? :)
Of all the analogies here, you have hit the the bullseye!!!
The parties did not review the qualifications.
The secretaries of state put them on the ballot without reviewing qualifications, even after citizens made inquires.
The electoral college dod not review qualifications.
The congress confirmedwithout review.
Until recently, the courst have refused to hear cases.
This is how the constitution is ignored, fraud is committed, and we have the mess we have.
Of all the analogies here, you have hit the bullseye!!!
Similar thoughts have bene wandering around in my mind now for some time. They are simply evil, not stupid.
There is also Federal Legislation on Succession, sorry.
I think that in a pure sense Dobbs is correct. It is not the place of the FEC to determine eligibility. That is the job of the Electoral college and the senate who accept the results of the electoral college.
This whole mess is deliberate by the democRATS. Undermine the constitution, the electoral college.
You are correct in the sense that in each state the rules are different.
In some States the State Party controls, in other States, the State Election Officer controls.
Perhaps in the future -- perhaps -- but that would have no bearing on the 2008 election which is history. The only remedy for that would be for the democrats to impeach and remove him from office.
Uh! ‘Scuse me, but isn’t that a constitutional requirement?
Bump!
The secretary of state in Cal is hiding under her desk and will not address the issue unless soemone slaps her with a court order delivered by a SWAT team.
Baloney!
Yes, there is a Constitutional question involved, but it is entirely possible to violate that document without committing a crime.
Crimes are defined by LEGISLATION, and we just don’t have any, right now, in this matter.
Apparently so, as long as he says he is eligible and signs an affidavit. Nothing else is required apparently.
poll:
http://www.military.com/hp/poll?poll=undefined
Created: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
As far as the conduct of the “anti-Obama GI” goes . . .
. . . I’d need to see the long-form birth certificate before I followed any of Obama’s orders too.
54%
. . . he should be discharged for dereliction of duty. And the Army should be ashamed to have him wearing the uniform.
34%
. . . it’s obviously a lot of political posturing, as usual. Wake me up when something important happens.
12%
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit a sitting President from being arrested, by any law enforcement officer.
The problem is, the President could then issue himself a prompt “pardon” and things would get messy.
Better to have the cabinet act, if it needed to be done quickly.
Well, he screwed us good—but at least he didn’t get a cherry!
yep...BUT we're talking about the fact that the FEC and many states are NOT checking to see if the candidates are qualified to run for the POTUS!
And Illinois is apparently one of them!!!
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.