Posted on 11/29/2008 3:47:31 PM PST by Deepest End
Heres 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 ...
I know it is very frustrating, but you probably should keep your hair.
We have GOT TO GET A JUDGE to hear this and a damn attorney to stress this point in court.
I nominate fightinJAG!
This is a serious matter though and I have to believe that ultimately SCOTUS will do the right thing. I know that may be naive, but I have no hair left to pull out and would like to keep what little sanity I have left.
I have a load of doctor jokes, if those suit ya!
I’m and engineer turned business owner (with a big BHO target on my back).
read later
Hello ! A new one !!
So far, we have the following : Vincent Jappi,Satin Doll (a little gender uncertainty there ?),helpful researcher,Jay 1949,deepest end,steady john (Don’t even ask about that one !),ron polarik (natch),and now fightin JAG.
Q. How many sock puppets does it take to overfill the drawer,Doctor C ?
In other words: Howard Dean. Ouch.
BTW my e-mail exchange is with Alan Keyes FWIW.
The same Ms. Fowler who sharply attacked Sarah Palin, saying “John McCain had chosen a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasnt had an abortion.”
My, my what a charming, upstanding woman. I’m sure we can take her word she checked B. Hussein’s birth certificate. (Barf)
That’ll be 600 million down the drain!
Whats interesting is the courts misinformation (and judges do NOT know everything. I have heard them over and over tell people if they plead nolo then their insurance wont go up which is FALSE) that just because Hawaii HAS a birth certificate doesnt mean he WAS BORN THERE. Seems judges arent 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.
Im so frustrated I could pull my hair out.
The problem that we have on this is that the framers failed to define “natural born citizen” for the understanding of the underlings who would follow them.
Hence, he would have had to have been born in Honolulu for the papers there to have the birth notice the following Sunday. Aug. 4 was a Friday. Aug. 6 was a Sunday. There is no way a Kenyan birth could have been put in the Honolulu paper two days later and passed off as Hawaiian, right? So what is Oprah's Choice hiding?
Well that's a real cliffhanger and I've read most of the threads on this topic. Any ideas? Those dates you insert certainly are ones I had not seen stated in that way before. Thanks.
"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma..."- Winston Churchill (but most of us may say we saw it in JFK.
“Hence, he would have had to have been born in Honolulu for the papers there to have the birth notice the following Sunday. Aug. 4 was a Friday. Aug. 6 was a Sunday. There is no way a Kenyan birth could have been put in the Honolulu paper two days later and passed off as Hawaiian, right? So what is Oprah’s Choice hiding?”
In the response I got from the Sec of State’s legal council in California. She is saying it was the parties’ responsibility to check the candidates for qualifications.
In other words: Howard Dean. Ouch.
BTW my e-mail exchange is with Alan Keyes FWIW.
____________________
And Howard Dean suspiciously suddendly withdraws.
It seems obvious to me that a Sec of State or someone outside the party has to qualify the candidates. Should be done when they announce for the primary in the state.
FNC said it is customary for the new party leader (Obama) to name a new chairman. Not sure if this is true.
This is not all that unusual in constitutional law. It points out, however, that it is very necessary for the Supreme Court to make a statement on this status and how it is defined.
There are many things that impact on it. For example, the Court would have to look at the common law and see what insight it gives into “natural born citizen.” There are other expression of the Founders’ intent in putting the qualification in the Constitution.
Likewise, there are statutes definining citizenship, some of which have changed over time, that also pertain either directly or because they provide insight into what was NOT considered being “natural born.”
IOW, this is exactly the type of question the Supreme Court exists to answer. And the framers probably didn’t define “natural born citizen” because it seemed obvious to them what it meant. That indicates that there likely is evidence of a known and accepted definition that is discoverable by the SCOTUS.
As I said, so long as reasonable experts can disagree on what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” we won’t actually know what the law is on the matter until the Supreme Court tells us what it is.
Mark
(1) Absent some specific statutory duty (as, arguably, exists in NJ and is a stated ground in the Donofrio case), the Secretaries of State have no duty to verify that the candidates are eligible to serve; and,
(2) The only entity that even gives lipservice to verifying a candidate's, or President-elect's, eligibility is THAT CANDIDATE'S POLITICAL PARTY.
This is simply constitutionally gross.
There is no way in God's Green Earth that the framers or anyone else who loves this country or our Constitution would find it acceptable for an individual to be seated as President of the United States based, possibly, on a series of rubberstamp "verifications" made by political hacks who:
(1) Not only were *not experts in the issues raised by various fact patterns or in the law and its application to those facts,*
(2) But who had *every motivation and personal interest, good and bad, known to man* at stake in their decision on whether a particular candidate was eligible to serve as president; and,
(3) Then there be NO WAY TO CHALLENGE the party's compliance or process? Balderdash.
This would be like saying a racehorse can't be awarded the crown in the Kentucky Derby if it was given performance drugs.
But the only entity that (supposedly) determines if the racehorse was given performance drugs, and thus is not eligible to be declared the winner of the Derby, is the racehorse owners.
And the owners don't even have a defined procedure they must follow to make that determination, nor do they have any expertise in determining whether the racehorse was given performance drugs.
Moreover, the racehorse owners have every motivation and personal interest known to man at stake in their horse winning the race, regardless if he's had performance drugs or not.
Yet they sign off that the racehorse is eligible to compete and win and that's not challengeable? By anyone?
Is this any way to run a Constitution?
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.