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

Skip to comments.

Lou Dobbs Just Reported: Fed. Election Commission doesn't require any proof to run for Presidency!
Lou Dobbs Tonight/CNN | 7/15/2009 | Lou Dobbs

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizenship; eligibility; fec; hawaii; indonesia; ineligible; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; potus; presidency; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-220 last
To: Kansas58
you need to get over such overreaching hot air.

Sorry, the Republican party pissed away this election. That's fact, not hot air.

McCain sucked as a candidate, but he still would have won if not for the financial melt down

While a significant factor, it alone didn't do it. It was more of what was not done, as well as what was done.
- The GOP's position/handling on amnesty pissed a lot of people
- McCain's very poor record of demonstrating loyalty to party and/or principles. His frequent backstabbing of other Republicans
- McCain's positions on some of the issues
- McCain's unwillingness to exploit any of Hussein's weaknesses and considerable load of baggage. (this is the biggest reason)
- Summed up, he ran a horrible campaign. Almost textbook horrible.

You need to get out of the circular firing squad

Nope. I'm not in one. I haven't stopped doing positive things. I would suggest that it is you that should consider we can't fix anything if we are not willing to acknowledge and admit what is and has been done wrong.

McCain and the Republican Party had no ability to force all of the individual States to “Vet” Obama

I wasn't saying they necessarily did, at least in an obvious legal sense. However it was in their power to raise the issue, and keep it out there continuously. For example, McCain could have gone out every day and said, Let's have a joint press conference and we'll both show our birth certificates. The Dem's opened that can of worms by their demand to see McCain's. His failure (and every other Republican's) to exploit that was embarrassing.

McCain deliberately took major weaknesses of BO off the table, told staff, can't talk about that, or that or that. The Dems were hardly able to hide their glee every time he did that. Pathetically embarrassing.

No, McCain should have won this election handily in spite of the mortgage issue. Which was another issue the Dems were very vulnerable on. My criticism of the GOP is very valid and necessary. If we can't them to stop doing the same stupid things, we are doomed. I am seeing very little evidence that the party leadership is interested in changing anything in their methods. And truthfully, I have pretty much had it with this whole notion that we shouldn't go after gutless liberal Republicans with pitchforks. They need to change or go.

You want negative? The RNC has, more than once, sabotaged conservative candidates that ran against RINO party favorites. Watch what happens in Florida with Crist (barf) in the next year. Then come back and tell me I have no business criticizing the "Party". The biggest roadblock to electable conservative candidates has been the RNC. That's what we need to fix.

201 posted on 07/16/2009 6:55:12 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm not sure we make any headway by having some person in charge of “eligibility” for candidates.

What happens if some rat disqualifies a conservative, drops them from the ballot.?
Even if later a law suit says they are eligible the election is over.
Remember the rats will turn every law, every regulation , on it's head and if it can be twisted and contorted to their use , it will be.

If the people don't have the moral fiber and common sense to vet the candidates they vote for then we are screwed. And no legislation can fix it.

Our problems are the result of long term programs set in place and executed over decades.
Unless we can get the average citizen to realize we are in a real battle for the soul of this nation we are done for.
We can't win if no one believes we are at war.

Oboma’s election just shows how far we have fallen and how hard it will be to rise up again. On the other hand ...... it is vitally important to expose the impostor and bring every force of law against him. The Constitution must be defended and upheld.

202 posted on 07/16/2009 7:01:50 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Any law could be written to require the documents that prove eligibility to be immediately made public.


203 posted on 07/16/2009 7:08:18 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
McCain is a “backstabber” of other Republicans—

But YOU are not?

204 posted on 07/16/2009 8:29:15 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
You need a college pre-law course, my friend.
You need something other than raw emotion, to help you understand some basic ideas.

The Constitution does not list penalties for violation, it simply restrains and organizes government.

205 posted on 07/16/2009 8:32:39 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Constitutional law is one thing.

Criminal law is another thing.

Civil law is another thing.

The Constitution is NOT legislation. It does TRUMP legislation, if legislation violates the Constitution -— but the Constitution does NOT get specific and does NOT get into issues of implementation.

206 posted on 07/16/2009 8:34:57 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: john mirse

The state of Hawaii no longer issues “long form” birth certificates, only the short form. The short form is acceptable for all legal purposes including federal issuance of passports. The same is true in many states. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
*****

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?


The name of the doctor and the name of the hospital where a person was born are not required under the US Constitution. The only information required on a legal document issued by the governing state authority are: (1)Place of birth and (2) date of birth. The constitutional questions are: can a candidate for president verify the date that they were born and whether they were born within the United States.
Excerpted from the St. Petersburg Times article that I linked: “The Health Department says the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is Hawaii’s version of a birth certificate. Calling it by other names — Certificate of Live Birth, Certification of Live Birth — is just semantics. ...the original birth certificate wasn’t posted, but...Hawaii says the document Obama posted can rightly be called Obama’s birth certificate...”

If Obama or George Washingon for that matter was born at home and delivered by a midwife, they are still eligible if they are now 35 years of age and the birth took place on US soil.

If a person requests their “birth certificate” from the State Department of Vital Records, they are sent the short form computer print out. That version is accepted by the federal government.

In the state of Hawaii, the short form “Certification of Live Birth” has a statement at the bottom of the document which says: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in all court procedings.” The COLB is accepted as valid proof of the date and place of birth for purposes of running for office.

Any voter who requires more information than that should vote against a candidate who doesn’t provide more information to satisfy the voter but the presidential candidate providing a document from a state governing authority listing a date of birth and a state of birth has met the requirements of the US Constitution.

Hawaii WOULD indeed turn down the request for issuance of a long form certificate. They would not treat a celebrity politician any differently than they would treat an average citizen.

NOBODY in 2009 can get a copy of the long form in Hawaii from the State Department of Vital Records since the year 2000 when they computerized all birth records.

Over a year ago questions were raised about Obama’s birth place. He requested his “birth certificate” from the state and they sent him what they send to everybody.
By the way, under Hawaii statutes (338-18(b)(9), any prosecuting attorney, such as the current Republican Attorney General of Hawaii can subpoena a birth record. No one has attempted to get a subpoena to date.
Here’s a link to the law:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
Now why do you think that neither the Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle (who spoke at the Republican convention and who endorsed and campaigned for John McCain) nor the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii Mark Bennett have sought a subpoena for Obama’s original birth record?


207 posted on 07/16/2009 9:00:12 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: xzins
" WHO does the constitution make responsible for certifying these qualifications for the presidency."

How about, "We The People" for starters....the Framers expected that THE PEOPLE could use common sense and judgement, and left those powers not specifically provided for IN THE CONSTITUTION remain at the power of the People, I believe.

208 posted on 07/16/2009 10:44:05 AM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gots to worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gots to buy no gas...Obama gonna take care o' me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Voters vote for electors, state by state, and electors are “party” entities.

Correct, and the parties choose the candidates unless one runs as an Independent. Regardless, the qualifications are determined by the Constitution and until now it was assumed that no one ineligible would run. The opposition and the media were expected to assure this. This time it failed primarily because of the media and the fear o it.

A challenge in court seems the only remedy and finding a court that will hear it, and give it a fair hearing, is exceedingly rare.

209 posted on 07/16/2009 11:07:28 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
-- until now it was assumed that no one ineligible would run --

The constitution anticipates the possibility of an unqualified person obtaining the majority of electoral votes. The failure here, if there is one, is squarely a failure of Congress.

Same with the financial meltdown - Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof, etc. The condition of the economy is more a failure of Congress than of the executive.

210 posted on 07/16/2009 11:31:27 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
McCain is a “backstabber” of other Republicans—
But YOU are not?

Nope. I am critical of worthless RINOs. That's NOT backstabbing. FYI, I don't owe loyalty to those that don't earn it. McCain falls into that category.

211 posted on 07/16/2009 2:09:24 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

sure. I said as much. But future implications can’t change the past. My post was in response to the statement “say the state of California or Texas were to require it — wouldn’t that forfeit all of Obama’s votes in that state at least?”


212 posted on 07/16/2009 3:58:53 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I like to kindly ask you what mean when you use the term "infer". And your insults don't support your argument very well. By the way, that

World Net Daily article that I mentioned does include a link to

the FactCheck.org story, so technically it is part of the WorlNetDaily article which says that it's own investigation into photos and scans of the birth certificate provided in the FactCheck story concluded that the photo's are authentic.

213 posted on 07/16/2009 6:30:58 PM PDT by joethecableguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

But the constitution does ! !


214 posted on 07/16/2009 6:53:54 PM PDT by Waco (Libs exhale too much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

But the constitution does ! !


215 posted on 07/16/2009 6:57:13 PM PDT by Waco (Libs exhale too much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snickering Hound

Chester Arthur was born in Vermont but his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth & that is what he was hiding. He burned all of his papers hoping that noone would discover he was not eligible.
Mark Steyn mentioned twice on Rush’s show that BO would go down in history like Chester Arthur.


216 posted on 07/17/2009 2:56:26 PM PDT by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Too bad the FEC isn’t the Constitution, because the Constitution requires a natural-born citizen.


217 posted on 07/17/2009 2:58:50 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“In Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law that, among other things, prohibited the states from regulating religious uses of land. As in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court asserted its primacy in matters of constitutional interpretation and struck down a governmental act that challenged that primacy.” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_boernes.html
I believe that anything Congress has to say about NBC should be left for the Supreme Court to decide. Before BO fills it with non-originalist.


218 posted on 07/17/2009 3:19:31 PM PDT by classical artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: classical artist

LOL
Your citation has NOTHING to do with the case at hand, nothing at all!

Please do more research, and open your mind.

Election law is, primarily a STATE issue, and it always has been.

The States have the power and the authority to regulate in this matter, as long as the States do not violate the Constitution of the United States.


219 posted on 07/17/2009 3:33:56 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: classical artist
And, by the way, the US Supreme Court is actually CO-EQUAL and NOT “Primary” in the role of interpreting the Constitution.
The President and the Congress have simply not asserted their “Coequal” status in this regard.

A simple act of Congress can instruct the Courts to but out of just about any issue, by restricting jurisdiction.

220 posted on 07/17/2009 3:36:36 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-220 last

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.

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