Change red to yellow!
Donate Monthly
Abolish FReepathons
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
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.
But either of the two is enough to disqualify. I think it to be more prudent to focus on the one with the highest probability of success. The Birther issue has been lost.
I would also say that ANY voter, anywhere in the country should be able challenge his eligibility (in Hawaii for example, plus other states). Case in point, the language in the Hawaiian procedure says "any party [or] individual".
(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.It does not say Hawaiian individual. And rightly so... Even though I am not in Hawaii, Obama's being determined eligible has a direct effect on MY candidate winning or losing the overall election.
So just at Hawaii alone, there should be MILLIONS of eligibility challenges! Ditto for other states with similar rules!
Also, since no one will know if the election committee will accept an argument that the 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett is the official definition of a "natural born citizen" (ie, born on US soil to TWO citizen parents), then it is also necessary (and you would have a direct tangible interest) to obtain for this legal proceeding a copy of his original birth certificate from the month of his birth. A 'copy' from the white house is not evidence in any legal proceeding. Plus even WITH acceptance of Minor vs Happersett, the original LFBC is needed to prove who were his parents on the day of his birth.
If you recognize that there is such a thing as an “anchor baby,” a child born in the United States to illegal aliens, then you recognize that just being born here is enough to make you natural born.
The "birther" issue has not been tried. To the extent it has even been introduced, the response from the WH was to issue a patently defective document. That was in a real sense another wagging of a finger.
I think it to be more prudent to focus on the one with the highest probability of success.
The removal ssue will only be resolved via impeachment and conviction. During the 2009 Joint Session of Congress each and every member of Congress had full knowledge that he was reported to have a foreign father and they gave him a pass. Do you expect them to now reverse themselves with the excuse the issue was not legally settled in 2009, when it in fact it was? Would that not be similar to arguing "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"?
Do you not agree that if a non-domestic birth is established, it is immediately game over?
“(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,”
Um...the qualifying phrase for “individual” in this sentence is “with a candidate on the presidential ballot,” so only an individual “on the presidential ballot” (presumably in HI) would have standing to contest the eligibility of another candidate on that ballet, IMO.
Any HI FReepers in HI inclined to run for POTUS in HI?
We are not talking about impeachment here. We are discussing the possibility of challenges to placing his name on ballots for 2012. I do not think this was done in 2008, as it should have been.
Court after court has thrown this issue out based on lack of "standing". but my reference to "lost" was actually in reference to the court of public opinion.
Birthers are now considered by almost all to be whack jobs along the lines of 911 truthers. Having the birth issue as a focus will be a distraction that the press will be all over.
Only if you change the issue. Here is what you said in #8 above.
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.
What is the use of focusing on "his birthplace" unless it is for the purpose of impeachment?
Have a nice day.
If I recall correctly from 4 years ago, New Jersey may have effective language for contesting a candidate at the primary level (although it provides for a very narrow time frame).
To prevent him from being reelected, which is what this thread is about, you would know if you had read the first sentence in the original post. All of my references have been to that subject, you brought impeachment into play.
A) The SCOTUS definition of NBC is self-limiting. "These are the natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." IOW, if you are not born in the country to citizen parents, you are considered a natural alien whose claim to U.S. citizenship is in doubt and must be resolved by either constitutional or statutory means.
B) In U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court ruled that to be satisfy the subject clause, the parents must have permanent residence and domicil.
If there's such a thing as an "anchor baby," it is the result of a misapplication of statutory law and has nothing to do with natural-born citizenship.
By law, the chief elections officer in Hawaii must grant a hearing so you can present your objection to the finding of eligibility. If you are denied a hearing, then you have particularized injury and thus legal standing to sue the state. If your objection is denied, then you can sue because the state's finding of eligibility is legally flawed and again, you'd have legal standing to sue the state and make them uphold the law. The Supreme Court's criteria for NBC was given directly to define the term as it pertains to presidential eligibility in the Constitution. There is no higher authority and the state is compelled to follow this definition. They would have no stronger legal basis for NOT following the Supreme Court's definition. Public opinion is irrelevant because we have a Supreme Court precedent.
The trickiest part of this is the short window for being able to challenge the finding of eligibility to put a candidate's name on the ballot. IIUC, the law in Hawaii was basically from the 60th day to the 45th day prior to election day (or something like that).
My view is that:
1) Who could be easier to defeat in the election than Baraq?
2) Any states that would procedurally take Baraq off the ballot are ones that he’s guaranteed to lose anyway BUT giving the Dems the perfect excuse for his defeat. There’s no way any true blue state is going to take him off the ballot.
"Birth" is a natural process. The founders weren't using the term "natural born" in such a simplistic meaning.
I cannot speak for others on this, but as for myself, I fully expected John McCain and the larger Republican party establishment to do this. At the time I did not realize that John McCain had a political vulnerability on this issue, and he would therefore not raise it because it was likely to do more damage to HIM than it would to Barry.
1) At 45 days prior to the election, the Democrats wouldn’t have time to put up anybody as strong as Obama.
2) We have SCOTUS precedent with the definition of NBC. There’s no higher legal authority that can be cited for keeping Obama on the ballot. Any Republican beats write-in candidate in a heartbeat.
You are correct, I introduced impeachment because it is relevant to our exchange on this thread.
Notwithstanding state election laws that do not clearly set out the two elements of NBC, imagine the difficulty and time required to start from the begining and litigate the foreign father feature of a candidate.
When and if it does reach the USSC, is there not clear precedent established by the irresponsible action of the 2009 Congress? Wrap that action with a loose definition of the 14thA; what is the likelihood of the court holding every member of the 2009 Congress was mistaken?
My argument is that it seems very likely an impeachement will be required to reverse the effect of the 2009 Congress.
You were not alone. Sadly, McCain, who was armed with Senate Resolution 511 which clearly underscored the two citizen parent requirement, did not make a peep.
It was also disappointing that not a single office of the Republican party, state or national, lifted a finger at the primary level. This despite election laws in virtually every juridiction that would have supported a challenge.
I have long argued the only rational excuse for the failure of the Republicans to procedurally challenge O’s qualifications at the 2009 Joint Session was that they had quality intel that Clinton presented a greater threat to our national security.
If so, given the cost in terms of the Constitution and based on what we know today, that must have been a hell of a threat.
I fear, however, that they allowed a constitutionally unqualified individual to squeak by simply for political gain. They ought to take an oath that protects us against that sort of fraud. /sarc
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.