It really pisses them off. I have so much fun with mine.
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.
Judicial branch has U.S. Marshals, IIRC.
I wonder if he still gets a security detail in prison.
If you’ll look at the constitution, while it has the birth qualifications, it does NOT appoint any office or person to be in charge of certifying candidates as meeting the requirements.
Congress should pass a law specifically identifying a certifying authority for anyone running for any national office.
*****
That may be true, but think about the following:
1. A person running for president must be at least, I believe, 35 years old.
2. A person born in Hawaii at least 35 years ago decides to run for President.
3. Important: I would think that most persons born in Hawaii at least 35 years ago would have a copy of their birth certificate from 35 years ago.
4. My point is this: I believe that 35 years ago Hawaii DID issue long form birth certificates, the one with the doctor and hospital names on it.
5. I would also suspect that if a person 35 years or older lost his birth certificate, say, 20 years ago, Hawaii would sent him a long form birth certificate 20 years ago or even 10 or 5 years ago, if he requested it.
6. President Obama: Do you really think that Hawaii would turn down the President of the United States if he asked for a copy of his long form birth certificate from 1961?
7. And if, for some unbelievable reason, Hawaii did turn down President Obama's request to get a copy of his long form birth certificate, do you really believe that a Hawaiian federal judge would also turn down President Obama's request, through his high-priced lawyers, to get a copy of his long form birth certificate? I don't think so.
8. Finally, why would then Senator Obama request a copy of his Hawaii birth certificate in 2007, because the date stamped on the birth certificate we see on the internet is stamped 2007?
9. Do you think that Obama lost his birth certifcate stamped with the date 1961, the year when he says that he was born, and that is the reason why he had to send away for a new one in 2007?
Confused?????
I am just going by what has been said.
actually it appears to be the state's fault...the state in this instance, IL, does not and did not verify Hussein's qualifications to run for the presidency. They just took Hawaii's "word" that Husseins was born there without seeing & verifying his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Incompetence throughout the USA! 1
California: For the June 8, 2010 Gubernatorial Primary Election, it's business as usual: they expect the candidates (including United States Senator and United States Representative) to meet the Constitutional requirements, but they don't state how to verify those requirements have been satisfied.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/running-for-office/2010/pdf/us-senate-2010.pdf
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/running-for-office/2010/pdf/rep-in-congress-2010.pdf
I don't think we really need Congress to interpret the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Constitution.
The qualifications are clear, and the interpretation of the Constitution by activist Judges is increasingly the problem, where a tortured NEW interpretation of common-sense provisions has led us to where we are now (total disregard of Framers' intent and plain language, to get a "living document", adjusted to suit the chic/current whims of special interest groups).
ONLY by Amedndment can the plain provisions be changed, IF we follow the intended path the Framers had designed.
Amedndment=Amendment
> The Constitution is NOT legislation.
If that’s true, then we do not have a Republic.
Look, that’s absurd on its face. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, not a list of “principles”. States ratify Law, not “principles”.
If the Constitution did not have the weight of Law, then why did my State refuse to ratify it without a “Bill of Rights” to enumerate specific inalienable rights of the people?
The 1st Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law ...”, which *IS* law, by definition.
I guess my problem is that I’m an engineer, not an ivy-league educated lawyer.
However, the Constitution was not written for ivy-league educated lawyers. It was written for “We the People”. If some ivy-league educated lawyer tries to tell us that the Constitution is not Law, he ought to be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail!
I am not saying that Congress should change the requirements. I’m saying they should set up a process by which those constitutional qualifications are publicly certified.
If we’d had that requirement with Obama, there would not now be this problem. The law would have REQUIRED his presentation of documentation certifying his citizenship.
You go read the constitution on this. Answer this question: Specifically, WHO does the constitution make responsible for certifying these qualifications for the presidency.
Imagine his school records come out, and that he stated he is an Indonesian citizen. How will the MSM spin that?
For the founding fathers I say BS. Gee, someone was high when citing must be a ‘natural born citizen’.
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
“Not owing allegiance to anybody else”
The court has violated it’s constitutional charter, it’s not just about birth, but allegiance/political jurisdiction.
Cabal point:
So what was the point of McCain going through the motion in Congress? Part of the plan?
By this example, tell me how Leahy would have supported Obama or at the least get the info required to view:
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: (Resolution 511)
Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.
Can we say Article 6 violation? I guess the sense of the senate overrules everything... including natural/national law.
Where is the list of documentation required and where is the documentation they have on him. We could switch for Putin if that was the case.
The writers and deliberators of the Amendment were very clear, and much is written about the fact that the phrase meant Complete Allegiance and Sole Jurisdiction to the US and no other foreign power. (insert Saudi bow here)
Sigh, re: the FEC:
Just like they didn’t care when he auctioned off spots on Google, received foreign non-citizen, gibberish donations (non-verified), cared if the candidate cut off requirements on his campaign site re: donations, gave lists to ACORN and other outfits to hit maxed out donors (including the diaper donors), had individuals inside polls shilling (on film), thugs outside polls (even during the primaries) re: intimidation, let the RBC (rules comm. DNC) give votes in states where said candidate wasn’t on the ballot (including disqualified ballots), the on-the-spot same day and college campus one day registration and vote outrages, Obama speaking in foreign countries using campaign funds and resulting donations (even if in a hat), no legislative information re: Illinois public service, the issue of renouncing Indonesian citizenship for US re: dual or till this day not having accounting of his campaign or confirmation of all his domestic, affiliation with terror supporting groups with donations, the Nigerian ‘Friends of Obama’ million dollar indictment, campaigning for a candidate openly (on video), for a foreign president, the Gaza phone bank for Obama, not to mention foreign donors.
Do they have rules for those at the FEC and what has been done about it? That’s the documentation I want to see and there are laws for them to follow.
I guess i’ll send more FOIAs.
Are you okay?
To bad he ran to run all the states... like those WITH requirements, not just IL.
/s
Thank you.
I guess you heard they wiped the ‘Fight the Smears’ website where the 2nd fraud (after Kos’) was displayed.
Disclosure: Fight the Smears/Politifact are Annenberg sites, as in Annenberg Challenge millions, that Obama ran (and instead of helping mainstream schools, funneled money to the Arab American Action Network and the communist Small Schools Network).
It really pisses them off. I have so much fun with mine.
Sounds like someone needs a van ride and a talking to.
“I’m saying they should set up a process by which those constitutional qualifications are publicly certified.”
That many be a very good idea. Congress has enacted all sorts of legislation to facilitate the carrying out of Constitutional requirements. Certainly what you propose, Padre, might have been avoided by such legislation. As it is, however, the several courts including SCOTUS have been dealing with these increasingly hysterical claims in precisely the manner that our courts should deal with them. It is apparent that the real complaint against the courts is not that they haven’t followed the law, which they clearly have, but rather that the result has been other than what some have hoped for. We call it the “disappointed litigants’ syndrome”. The howls from the left after the decision in Bush v. Gore were a version of this. Complaining about the courts is, sadly, what losers occasionally do. After all, some people have a real problem recognizing when their problems are their own fault and taking responsibility for them.
“You go read the constitution on this. Answer this question: Specifically, WHO does the constitution make responsible for certifying these qualifications for the presidency.”
Specifically, Art III sections 1 & 2 vest that responsibility in the courts.
Section Two:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
I see Section II making the courts a reasonable after-the-fact locus for appeals, but I don't see them listed specifically as a pre-election certifier of qualifications.
That is what Congress should remedy.
” I see Section II making the courts a reasonable after-the-fact locus for appeals, but I don’t see them listed specifically as a pre-election certifier of qualifications.”
Well no, not exactly. Sec 1 sets up the Courts. Sec. 2 gives those courts jurisdiction over all matters arising under the Constitution, which these challenges do.
“I don’t see them listed specifically as a pre-election certifier of qualifications.”
In fact, a challenge of the qualifications of a candidate for president ought to be brought prior to the election and brought in Federal District Court. That’s been the point of several of the standing decisions. The courts therefore are potentially the pre-election certifiers of qualifications IF someone wants to challenge. It is another matter to set up a mechanism whereby all candidates MUST be certified. The Constitution doesn’t require that but so far as I can see, Congress could certainly enact such a law so long as the qualifications were limited to those set forth in the Constitution.
I can see that we’re thinking along the same lines, but I still see the courts as a location for appeals rather than a tasked certifier of qualifications.
As an aside, what would give a person standing prior to an election, and what would give standing post-election? Would they be different?
I believe there were appeals prior to the election, and I do believe that standing was the issue.
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.