Posted on 04/12/2011 11:12:10 AM PDT by American Dream 246
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws, media accounts and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a private hearing with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from the Hawaiian ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailypen.blogspot.com ...
it was a long form bc they changed that after HDOH first tried their no long forms available crap..
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
Political customs are not binding. The Constitution is. Since the electors speficially voted to make Biden VP, he is the VP. How he came to be nominated for that position is irrelevant. According to the Constitution, the only thing that matters is that the electors voted for him.
Really? Which article gives SCOTUS that power?
I guess I could venture out a little further. I know that a cadre of card carrying commies-which was considered a legitimate school of thought back then-spread like mercury when Tailgunner Joe went after them. They went from NYC, to SF, to Washington, and then over to Hawaii. Unfortunately, Tailgunner Joe imploded and did not get all of the cancer which has since spread and put us the nation at risk of dying.
that only native born Hawaiian's
The communists have been attacking us for some time now. The fun is only beginning :(
FYI..a long, but interesting read..
\sheesh read the Constitution for crying out loud or are you too busy to do that too?
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..."
If a case was brought to the SCOTUS regarding a person's Constitutional eligibility for office, they would be the deciding authority.
Congress has no power to “void” an election. Nor do any courts. Congress can only remove through impeachment and conviction.
Sorry, but the quoted article doesn't give SCOTUS the power to determine eligibilty, nor does it give it power to remove a sitting president.
Never said you said that but that is generally the belief which accompanies the idea that his being unqualified means the election can be treated as if it never occurred. We have seen this floated even on this thread.
Your argument doesn't hold water. As far as the Constitution is concerned, only the vote of the electors matters, and the electors continue to vote seperately for VP and President.
No actually the Court has neither of those powers. They remain with the Congress. It is Congress which validates the election. Remember the dweebs trying to get the Congress to rule W was not elected?
When the Congress accepts the electoral votes and certifies them there is nothing that can remove a president other than impeachment and conviction.
Your quote does not say what you believe it does. It is not speaking of the president.
Congress can not make somebody eligible who isn't. If they attempt to, they are complicit in the fraud, whether it's deliberate or through ignorance.
Where the left is getting any ground on this it's through the lack of clarity on the term "Natural Born Citizen," which allows the waters to be muddied.
Suppose for a moment that the issue at hand was not Obama's NBC Status, but his age, which is also a Constitutional requirement, but a much more easily defined one.
Suppose that Obama was actually 33, and didn't meet the requirement but managed to skirt the issue enough to get on the respective state ballots and win the electoral college. Congress can certify the election to its heart's content, but that would not make Obama a legitimate POTUS - he simply doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications. You can call a round peg "square" all you want, but that doesn't make it so...
It gives them the authority to rule on the Fact and Law. If the fact and law regarding a person's eligibility for office are in question, they are fully empowered to rule on it.
I have to LOL at people like you...on your homepage you argue that, "My fellow conservatives, let's focus our energy on attacking him for legitimate reasons, like his attempted government takeover of health care, his borderline treasonous decision to try KSM in a civilian court, and his attempt to destroy our economy via cap and trade. These are real issues we can win on. The birther nonsense makes us look like nuts."
And yet, by your own admission, it's YOU who are obsessed with attacking "birthers". If you're so concerned about all the time being spent on this topic, why do you spend so much time on it? Moreover, your homepage screed is all about the location of Obama's birth, which very few birthers even see as relevant. It's certainly interesting to consider why the circumstances of his birth seem so clouded, but it is in fact a question of parentage, possible adoption by a foreign national, possible application to US schools as a foreign student, to say nothing of the myriad of questions revolving around his SSN(s).
Oh, I agree that Congress was complicit in this fraud. It refused to even consider the issue which was as irresponsible as anything they ever did. Now it is the only institution which can undone the fraud through impeachment.
There is indeed some problem with explaining the concept of NBC to the average dunderhead. But it is fairly simple to explain that a NBC has TWO citizen parents (at the time of Urkel’s birth). Now only the mother has to be a citizen (of any age unlike at the time of Urkel’s birth). You know that the Left will howl that this is only a “technicality” and Urkel should be grandfathered into the new requirements.
Someone has actually made the argument that the reason Urkel does not show the long form is that it would show he was not qualified by age. It don’t think that one holds much water.
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.