Posted on 11/29/2008 3:47:31 PM PST by Deepest End
Here’s a good breakthrough. Tonight, based upon the recommendation of a comment left on another site, I went and found the Charter and Bylaws of the United States Democratic Party. After sifting through that, I was led to a document called “The Delegate Selection Rules For the 2008 Democratic National Convention”. It was issued by the Democratic Party of the United States, and seems to be approved by Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at countusout.wordpress.com ...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf
bump...
I have been saying for a while that one of the glaring, apparent deficiencies in this process is that no one seems to be responsible for ensuring that the President-elect is eligible under the Constitution to serve.
This is indeed a breakthrough to find out that the party at least gives lipservice to this requirement. That said, there still is no indication that a substantive review by individuals who are expert in how the law applies to the unusual facts in Obama’s case was conducted, much less how it might be verified or challenged.
Try this one Viking2002:
http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/2008/11/now-we-know-who-kind-of.html
Cheers!
Now We Know the Who (Kind of) - UPDATED
Update 11/29/08
It seems that the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together. This morning I woke up to interesting news. At
http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/whats-worse-than-nancy-pelosis-signature-on-nomination-docs-1-response-from-secretary-of-state-south-carolina-pay-particular-attention-to-page-2-in-which-the-democratic-chair-unequivocally-stat/#comment-3696
I found a document from the Chair of the South Carolina Democratic party certifying that the party's candidates were and are eligible to hold the offices they were running for. This would, of course, include the Presidential candidate (BIG hat tip to MoniQue for tracking this document down).
Of course, I drafted a letter to Ms. Fowler right away. Here it is in its entirety:
Chairwoman Fowler,
According to a document from you to the South Carolina Election Commission dated August 14, 2008, you stated that:
"In accordance with South Carolina Code of Laws 7-13-350 and 7-11-15, as amended, the South Carolina Democratic Party is pleased to submit our list of Democratic candidates for the 2008 general election ballot.
The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at 803-799-7798."
Instead of contacting your office by phone, I thought email might be more convenient. I have three questions that I hope you might be able to answer for me:
1) What individual or group of individuals was legally responsible for certifying that Barack Obama was and is eligible to hold the office of President?
2) Will you please provide a detailed chronology of the certification process, including the date and time that the final determination to certify was made?
3) Will you please provide a complete list of all documentary evidence that was required from then-Senator Obama by your office in regards to the certification process.
If for any reason you cannot provide some or all of the information I have requested, please provide specific and detailed reasoning as to why that information was not or may not be released to the public.
I respectfully request that a written response be sent to this email address (juriggs@yahoo.com) no later than 12:00 pm, Thursday December the 4th, and thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs
http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/2008/11/now-we-know-who-kind-of.html
I agree. Soemthing doesn't pass the smell test though. Why would a political animal like Howard Dean resign after orchestrating a "Landslide" election? An extended overseas vacation?
In Rhode Island, all it takes is a form signed by Obama that he is constitutionally eligible. We have to take his word.
bump
South Carolina Sec of State response:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf
I’d be willing to bet that if you put these party hacks under oath (well, okay, if they tell the truth) they’d have to admit that they did NOTHING to verify Obama’s eligibility, much less ask questions, consult with constitutional lawyers and so on.
Frankly, it probably would not occur to anyone that that would be necessary. If Obama said he was born in Hawaii, that would have closed the matter for most-—because the popular perception is that if you are born in the U.S., you are a “natural born citizen.”
However, since this area of the law is not settled, and there are arguments that, on their face, may have some merit (even if they are not dispositive)-—e.g., that there is a requirement, or an additional requirement, that a child born in 1961 receive U.S. citizenship by descent from his father (not mother) in order to be “natural born”-—clearly the usual pro forma approval was not appropriate.
Even if the arguments on what constitutes being a “natural born citizen” were pretty settled, no party functionary would be entitled to settle such an important question finally, by his lonesome, because *he thinks* he knows what a “natural born citizen” is.
Apparently Obama himself has talked about his various citizenships (in his books). IOW, there may be no “there” there, but the grounds upon which questions are raised are not made up out of whole cloth.
Interesting response from Connecticut Sec of State:
This is wrong. Once the Constitution requires something that is verifiable, such as whether an individual is a “natural born citizen,” the Legislature must create a mechanism for enforcing that requirement, as well as procedures to challenge the enforcement or lack thereof and then provide a remedy.
I don't have a problem if verification actually is not the job of the SOS. (I do have a problem if their state law requires more and they do not fulfill their duties.)
At some point, however, it's not good enough to leave this important LEGAL CONCLUSION (that an individual is, in fact, a "natural born citizen") in the secret and private (read: not ordinarily amenable to judicial action) realm of inner political party machinations.
Apart from the grossness of claiming that it's sufficient to trust nasty political machines with the penultimate task of VOUCHSAFING THE CONSTITUTION, even if it were the Party of Angels, please: in this fact pattern re Obama, the questions, if legally cognizable, are truly complex and require experts.
IF--a big IF---the Supreme Court were to take up this matter (e.g., the Donofrio case), there would be many trees killed to support voluminnous briefs, not only by the parties, but also by myriad amici; there might be extensive arguments; discussion of foreign laws, and on and on.
Even if Joe Party Hack was a solid citizen who wanted more than anything to do the right thing, this is a question that potentially will exercise the expertise of the Supreme Court. How would Joe Party Hack even begin to know what the issues or law or relevant history was?
You sound like a lawyer. I guess “fightinJAG” is your occupation.
I’ll refrain from lawyer jokes. JK, some of my most expensive friends are lawyers :)
What’s interesting is the court’s misinformation (and judges do NOT know everything. I have heard them over and over tell people if they plead nolo then their insurance won’t go up which is FALSE) that just because Hawaii HAS a birth certificate doesn’t mean he WAS BORN THERE. Seems judges aren’t aware of the odd rule in Hawaii offering birth certificates for children up to 1 year of age that were not born in Hawaii up until 1972.
We have GOT TO GET A JUDGE to hear this and a damn attorney to stress this point in court.
I’m so frustrated I could pull my hair out.
Cross-referencing to other threads with good discussions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2138892/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2138966/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2137253/posts
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.