NH Rep. Laurence Rappaport speaks with The Post & Email about Eligibility, the Constitution

In September 2008, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport and another member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Rep. Carol Vita, brought a complaint of possible election fraud to the New Hampshire Secretary of State, Mr. William Gardner, stating that Barack Hussein Obama’s name had been placed on the state ballot despite evidence which cast doubt on his constitutional eligibility to serve as president. Mr. Gardner stated that he did not have the authority to intervene and referred the matter to New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney, who did nothing....New Hampshire election law contains provisions which require candidates to affirm that they “meet the qualifications” for the offices they seek. An astute reader of The Post & Email brought the original article to our attention recently and asked about the doctor’s affidavit mentioned above which Rappaport had presented to Secretary of State Gardner. We therefore decided to follow up with Rep. Rappaport to inquire about any new developments with his complaint as well as his plans for the future.

MRS. RONDEAU: You brought your complaint to Secretary of State Gardner, who referred you to the Attorney General, Michael Delaney. Did Mr. Delaney give you a reason as to why he was unable to act on it?

REP. RAPPAPORT: Yes, he did. I made an appointment, along with Rep. Carol Vita, and she brought her husband, and the three of us met with Attorney General Michael Delaney during which he said that there was nothing that he could do because he believed it was a federal matter. He said that if we had a question about it, we had to bring it before the federal prosecutor.

MRS. RONDEAU: Aren’t the states responsible for elections? Isn’t each state its own republic?

REP. RAPPAPORT: Yes, that’s right. The road map for the conglomeration of all the states into the federal bureaucracy was written in the Constitution, and the powers that went to the federal government were very limited. According to both the states and federal Constitutions, the federal government was supposed to be very limited in scope, but it certainly hasn’t turned out that way.

MRS. RONDEAU: On July 1, the first challenge to the health care legislation was heard in Virginia, and the government’s attorneys argued that state law should “be supplanted” by federal law.

REP. RAPPAPORT: Yes, I’m aware of that, and I disagree. I think that the federal government has never been imbued with the ability to change the Constitution. When there have been changes, for example, when voting for the abolition of slavery, it has been by constitutional amendment. So my feeling is that if anything needs to change, it can only change by constitutional amendment, and certainly, the federal government is not imbued with the power to make changes.

MRS. RONDEAU: It appears that the federal government believes it does have that power.

REP. RAPPAPORT: Yes, it seems that way. Are you aware of the Apuzzo lawsuit?

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes. We’ve been following that closely.

REP. RAPPAPORT: So you read the latest ruling.

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes. What is your interpretation of that?

REP. RAPPAPORT: I think it’s wrong. It’s incorrect, because so far, the federal government has managed to get “lack of standing” passed everywhere, and some people, including me, question that. If Mr. Keyes had been disqualified and he was another presidential candidate in California, who in the world does have standing? This is crazy. I just don’t believe it.

In the case of my issue, specifically, I’m alleging an investigation needs to be initiated to find out whether or not fraud was perpetrated on the voters of New Hampshire.

MRS. RONDEAU: You appear to be taking your constitutional responsibilities very seriously.

REP. RAPPAPORT: I think I am.

You may find some comfort in the following:

I found what I was looking for:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/birther-crazy/

imabirthertoo 20. Jul, 2010 at 11:45 am

Bob Ross, (if that is your real name I must applaud your courage)

Why the need to initially respond with an attack on the substance of my comment?

Fear? Sure it is fear. George Washington, in his farewell address, told us to fear usurpation.

Was George wrong to consider such to be guarded against?

I know the fears of millions of Americans could’ve been laid to rest, and I know who has the ability to make that happen. Obama

I don’t dislike Obama. I never have. I think he was the breath of fresh air that this country needed.

Why is it that people think you must dislike him in order to find a need to question him?

Steadfast defense of the unknown is the way many deal with their fear of an outcome they would rather avoid.

I have seen it too many times.

For example, those who developed interstitial lung disease, after many years of smoking, are more likely to blame their exhaustion on getting older.

They don’t want the truth.

Seeking the truth is the only effective way to address a problem.

Many Obama defenders play the race card as if it were the wildward in their defense deck.

As an African-American, I find this disgraceful.

It only serves to delegitimize every valid complaint.

Obama, by failing to nip this thing in the bud, has damaged race relations in this country.

(yes yes yes!!! That’s what I said!)

What makes the cries of racism worse is that they are predominantly being made by white folks who have never been subjected to racism.

I grew up in the south. I’ve seen racism up close and personal.

Questioning Obama is not a matter of race.

Playing the race card to defend him against all questions is the very essence of racism.

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.