Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle for 2012!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/04/2011 8:03:55 AM PDT by edge919
This is the time to start a plan of action to challenge the inclusion of any Constitutionally deficient presidential candidates on your state's primary or general election ballots. It's important to research your state law and see what time frame is allowed for filing a challenge with the chief election officer. It's also important to have a clean, clearly stated and factually supported challenge.
In Obama's case, he does NOT meet the Supreme Court's definition for natural-born citizen as used to satisfy the meaning of the term in Art II Sec I of the U.S. Constitution: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. "Natural-born" according to the Supreme Court is defined outside the Constitution, excluded from the 14th amendment and means without "doubts" that must be resolved.
§11-113 Presidential ballots. (a) In presidential elections, the names of the candidates for president and vice president shall be used on the ballot in lieu of the names of the presidential electors, and the votes cast for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the presidential electors and alternates nominated by each political party.(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;(d) Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.
The law above requires the candidate to be eligible for office and it gives ANY party an opportunity to object to a finding of eligibility. Theoretically, one could even challenge the place of birth and therefore have a direct and tangible interest in obtaining a certified copy of the official birth certificate held by the state of Hawaii to view at this legal hearing. It shouldn't be necessary however, since Obama does NOT meet the Supreme Court definition for natural-born citizen as used in Art II Sec I.
Another state law like this one exists in Arizona.
16-351. Limitations on appeals of validity of nomination petitions; disqualification of candidateB. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.link
It's my understanding there is a simimlar law in Illinois. There are probably similar laws in the state where you live and it needs to be challenged in each and every state that allows such challenges. It's not too late to correct the mistake made in 2008.
It’s past time. If this hasn’t been put in place, it’s not gonna be.
Your wasting your time. This birther stuff is going nowhere and Hussein will not be kept off the ballot anywhere.
Just beat him. Soundly, decisively and beyond the “margin of fraud”. Take the senate and widen the majority in the House.
Repudiate him.
Pro’bly not. But filing a challenge doesn’t hurt anything and let’s your state know you want an answer. The more challenges filed the better if you want a result.
“He’s already president” does not solve Obama’s Constitutional deficiency. The Supreme Court, via Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, gives us a clear definition and a unanimous affirmation of how this Constitutional term is defined. There is NO authority that Trumps the Supreme Court on this definition. A chief elections officer, faced with this clear authority, would have no legitimate choice but to remove or bar Obama from the ballot. If it doesn’t happen, then you have legal standing to sue and a clear basis for the lawsuit since there would be a statutory law that was clearly not be followed. This should have been done in 2008, but most of us were too distracted by trying to figure out if the birth certificate was legitimate, when it turns out, it doesn’t matter. The children of deported foreign nationals are not natural-born citizens and are NOT Constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
To what purpose?
Even if he was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a natural born citizen. That should be the issue that is focused on, not his birthplace.
Figure out how to get God to smite him somehow.
To be comprehensive. Place of birth is still one of the TWO components of natural-born citizenship.
I prefer to focus on keeping him off the ballots since he is Constitutionally deficient. Let’s exercise the power of the people.
In 7 weeks it will be 2012
How to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot:
Repatriate him.
Nobody’s keeping 0bumble off the ballot. Defeat him at the polls or watch him go willy nilly dismantling the U.S. in a second term during which he doesn’t have to think about re-election.
Well, draft away, get it done.
Why put this up to a vote when there’s no need?? This is the whole reason why such ballot laws are in place. There’s no reason to have these laws if voting citizens won’t use them.
lwet’s not be dumb here HE is beatable in november, hillary is not. if he goes out, then we’d have to contend with her. don’t lose sight of the end game here.
Good research.
It is up to the States, who are responsible for appointing Presidential electors, to act. Not the courts.
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.