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

To: edge919
Problem has always been there is really no legal precedent for dealing with the eligibility of the POTUS.
BO has known this from the git=go and has taken advantage of it.
So we will continue to try again and again to get the right defendant, plaintiff and premise in front of the right judge. Eventually the right combination will come together.
62 posted on 05/31/2012 9:40:32 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya."..Is he lying now or lying then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: hoosiermama
Problem has always been there is really no legal precedent for dealing with the eligibility of the POTUS.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it's a little awkwardly phrased. There is a legal precedent for defining presidential eligiblity. What we don't have is specifically defined process for enforcing Constitutional eligibility ... other than to keep ineligible candidates off of ballots at the state level. Courts have been involved in nullifying ineligible candidates and office holders before, but never at the presidential level. Congress is too partisan or too chicken to take matters properly into their hands, and courts obviously are just as hesitant. But there should be no reason for any state or court to hestitate about leaving a candidate off of a ballot if there's ANY doubt about that person's eligibility. If that candidate doesn't like it, he or she can sue for reinstatement on the ballot, which puts the burden of proof COMPLETELY on that candidate. If that were the case with Obama, he'd be gone yesterday because the Kenyan Coward™ cannot legally prove he is a natural-born citizen.

68 posted on 05/31/2012 9:52:07 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

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