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.
> what “law?”
>
> point to a federal law that requires states to vet
> candidates?
From Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
The States ratified the Constitution, which includes this statement.
Given that the prevailing responses to this law, here on a “conservative” forum, were on the order of “LOL”, then I would be inclined to say that the Republic is finished.
We are no longer a Nation of Laws, but a Nation of Mob Rule with attendant Bread and Circuses.
Every man for himself.
Last one out, dim the lights.
I asked you to point out the law that requires the states to check the qualifications of candidates to run for POTUS.
still waiting...
Think ahead, please.
It would be GREAT for the Country, and HORRIBLE for the Democrats, if a sitting President was not allowed ballot access, in any State!
As I understand it, when a presidential candidate signs his routine eligibility form to run in primaries in each state, we the public have 1 to 5 days to challenge the eligibility of the candidate.
1. So I say this: We must be ready in 2011 and 2012 to challenge presidential candidate Obama when he signs his eligibility application before each primary in each state, because we only have 1 to 5 days to challenge Obama.
2. My point is this: Challenging presidential candidates in that 1 to 5 day window is a state function and not a federal function.
3. 2010 elections: Come to think of it, we should challenge candidates for Senator and Representative throughout the country as to their age and citizenship eligibility by asking them to present their long form birth certificates.
4. If the 2010 candidates don’t want to provide their long form birth certificates for legal or personal reasons, then I say that we simply tell them that we won’t vote for them.
Unless the Cabinet determines that he is unable to perform his duties.
Please, drop the FEC, they are not a player in this matter at all!
When it serves the purposes of the political class, laws and rules don't matter. Then they thumb their noses at us and say, "do something about it".
Here's the problem with the elitist de-construction of the law in American. It won't stop with them.
Americans have taken up arms against the government here in American on a mass basis arguably 4 times in our history: Bacon's Rebellion, the American Revolution, The Texas Revolution and the Civil War. Throw in Nate Turner and the Whiskey Rebellion, if you please.
I believe it is inevitable, that the destruction of the law, constitution, fundamental fairness in society by the leftwing elitists will lead to the use of arms by Americans against the government. It may lead to secession by Texas, Alaska and other States.
I read a post at Instapundit that members of Congress were surprised by the outraged reactions in their districts to the passage of 'Kneecap and Tax'. This proves to me, members of Congress live in Cloud-Koo-koo-Land. Their reality is so far away from the reality of the rest of America, that they are driving off the cliff and they don't even know it. It's a Roadrunner cartoon, with Wily E. Coyote floating in the air over the canyon, before he falls. That's the Congress today, that's the US Government today, that's the State of Michigan, California (fill in the blank). These "leaders" lead nothing.
Please cite the Constitutional provision you refer to here.
It’s the FEC who qualifies all Federal elections. And that’s Lou Dobb’s point. My point was that states don’t usually have guidelines because of this point. It’s a Constitutional matter, that makes it a Federal matter. And that’s the FEC.
For qualification to be president, the Congress is the body who has standing to challenge the qualifications of the person voted for by the electors.
:::::::::
So, again let’s say this is the case. The Congress, has the power to impeach and try. But would they do that in this case, the case of a fraudulent sitting president? Or would they defer the matter to a branch of the judiciary? I am trying to pin down the legal path and options that exist as a matter of law.
ooops! I was talking about the QUALIFICATIONS to RUN FOR PRESIDENT! That is in our constitution, is it not? It is a FEDERAL LAW. Not a STATE law.
The STATES have the POWER, under the Constitution to require that qualifications are met.
The STATES CONTROL NEARLY EVERYTHING ELSE INVOLVED WITH ELECTIONS!
This is, primarily, a STATE responsibility, and we need to address this problem at that level, NOW!
> I asked you to point out the law that requires the states
> to check the qualifications of candidates to run for
> POTUS.
This must be a case in point to demonstrate why this country is in the mess it’s in.
The Constitution *IS* the Law. *EVERYONE* is required to obey it, including the functionaries of the States that ratified it.
My wife and I have been through the international adoption process. The laws, however nebulously or poorly written, of each country were enforced BEYOND THE LETTER, “just to be sure”, by *ALL* participating functionaries, agencies, and litigants.
The court in the nation in which the adoption took place examined every document, and investigated all claims, fastidiously.
U.S. Immigration, through their satellite office here in my State and through their consular office in that foreign country, were so meticulous about the enforcemtnt of every regulation that I had to take one of the children out for a new immigration photo, the day before we were scheduled to return to the States, because a frond of hair was obscuring one small part of her ear!!!
At the airport, before our departure, we were taken out of the check-in line to wait an extra half hour while the police examined our adoption papers and the children’s emigration and immigration papers.
Upon landing in the States, we had to wait an extra hour while the U.S. immigration reviewed our case and examined every detail of the adoption and immigration papers.
If government functinaries can be that fastidious about assuring that adoption, emigration and immigration papers comply with the laws and regulations, however unclear and general they may be, certainly the papers submitted by a candidate for President of the United States should be subject to the same kind of due diligence to assure that they are in compliance with the law.
Any state or functionary that refuses to faithfully discharge this responsibility vis-a-vis the papers filed by a candidate for POTUS, is in VIOLATION of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
What am I missing here?
That would be a creative, one might even say "Hollywoody" reading of the 25th, considering that in this instance, the President wasn't dead or injured. And, considering the impetus of the 25th, the Kennedy assassination, I'm not sure it would be in keeping with the spirit or intent of the 25th.
That would be the stuff of a real Constitutional crisis. Is a legal disability what the Amendment was passed to address. That would be a question for SCOTUS.
Seriously, you could not be more wrong.
The FEC does NOT have any authority over qualifications.
Qualifications are first the responsibility of the Candidate.
Qualifications are next the responsibility of the Political Party.
Qualifications are next the responsibility of the State Election Officer.
Qualifications are next the responsibility of the Delegates to the various Party Conventions.
Qualifications are next the responsibility of the Electors of the various States.
Qualifications are next the responsibility of Congress.
At ANY of these points, someone could make the decision that a Candidate was not qualified, and take appropriate action.
THE FEC IS NEVER A PLAYER IN THIS PROCESS, EVER, NOT AT ALL, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!
Elections are primarily a STATE function.
Also, logically speaking, we should attempt to stop such trains, BEFORE they “leave the station” -— we should nip these problems in the bud early, which means:
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT THE STATE LEVEL!
However, it is also clear to me that the individual states have the power, legally, to deny ballot access to Obama in the next election, if Obama does not meet the requirements.
The “vault copy” Birth Certificate has NEVER been released by Obama, and we deserve to see that document, if it does exist.
Oh, come on. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. We've moved beyond it.
/sarc
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a 10th Amendment approach.
The Constitution does not spell out the method States should use, in elections.
Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, WHICH DOES MENTION THE STATES -— DOES IT NOT? -— the STATES are allowed to enact the enabling legislation.
And your background for this is...?
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.