Posted on 09/27/2010 6:19:44 PM PDT by blueyon
BREAKING ! - Obama Was Not Constitutionally Certified To Run For President! - DOCUMENTED!
The statute is HRS 11-113, and the relevant section says:
(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.
There is a limited window of time for challenging placement on a ballot, and that window came and went.
As for charges of perjury, those would actually be filed against Obama, Pelosi, and Germond. But civilians can’t file criminal charges; only the politically-appointed or elected officials can file criminal charges, and nobody will do it.
That’s where we’re at in this country. That’s why, to me, the bigger issue in all this is the failure and corruption of our government, media, and law enforcement, since that is what enabled this whole mess to happen.
The Constitution IS our "gun permit" (the rest is troublesome government paperwork; otherwise, we are truly screwed.)
ALWAYS worth a ping!
There you have it. All the state law requires is that someone says they're qualified. The state government has no requirement to check acutal eligibility.
The time to challenge Obama’s eligibility was during the convocation of the Electoral College after the election.
It appears to me that para.1 C is the gotyou provision. The nominating convention certainly cannot be used as the state parties and the time, place and mannerof choosing has to be by each individual state. Of course at this time not adhering to law only means there was a big and immoral scam pulled off by many people including Cheney. Any one could have asked for each state’s certification with proof such were indeed by the states.
Your perjury argument might be worth looking into.
You're right. Americans wanted so badly to believe in BO despite the overwhelming evidence against him in terms of his eligibility and qualifications for the office. But take heart. I think things are reaching the saturation point.
That is what the law is all about.
And the question asking whether there were any objections was never asked. Dick Cheney never asked the question required by law. Pelosi covered that up by her standing ovation, but the law was not fulfilled in certifying Obama as the winner.
I believe there’s more to that than meets the eye. I believe there is a reason Cheney didn’t ask the question and neither Pelosi nor anybody else pushed the issue. I don’t believe it was accidental. Too many “accidents” among the leadership at critical points in the process.
But I should also add that in order for a candidate to be “duly chosen” by the DNC, they have to meet the Constitutional requirements. So even on the other 49 Certs of Nomination that didn’t have the specific eligibility language, Pelosi signed a false statement. It’s just that she can claim on those documents that she trusted the process and had no first-hand knowledge that he wasn’t eligible.
But that is shown to be a lie because she knew the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility. If she was truly trusting the process that refusal by Obama’s alleged birth state should have made her signature a no-go without further checking of her own. She IGNORED the process of letting the state parties investigate eligibility.
People might not have noticed, but Obama only did well in the caucuses. Hillary won when there was an actual ballot. There was a big push to switch from ballots to caucuses. Here in Nebraska, for instance, 2008 was the first time the dems had a caucus. I don’t think that is an accident, because states have legal requirements for a party to get their candidate’s name on the primary ballot. By having caucuses instead, those legal requirements are side-stepped. Caucuses also allow for more peer pressure and thug-type activity and rely more on the emotion of the moment.
In Nebraska all that is required for the party ticket to get on the general election ballot is the certification from the national parties. When I spoke with my SOS he said that is because the parties both have requirements that the candidates be Constitutionally eligible.
The legal accountability for this whole process is the threat of perjury conviction if the DNC certifies somebody who is ineligible. That is the point of procedure on which every state in the union places their trust. And now we will see whether there is any accountability at all.
Does anybody know whether the state AG’s can charge Pelosi and Germond with perjury, since the perjury they submitted was in signing a statement that the candidate was “DULY chosen” even though Pelosi at the time knew that Obama was not eligible because the folks in Hawaii who knew his legal status refused to certify his eligibility?
I think the provision is basically to get the state party to sign off that they accept the candidates chosen at the National Convention. Hawaii chose Obama in their caucus, but if they had chosen Hillary they still would be required to sign a statement that Obama was the candidate chosen by the state party, in order to get Obama’s name on the general election ballot.
Technically, if Hillary had won the Hawaii caucus the HDP could have insisted that Hillary was their candidate but the only way the HDP could get a candidate on the ballot is if the candidate they chose is the same candidate as the National Convention chose. So basically this requirement means that the candidate chosen by the National Convention has to be the candidate placed on the general election ballot. Having the HDP sign off on it eliminates the opportunity for the HDP to contest what the DNC does.
The trouble is that only a few people in this country can file criminal charges, and they all get their positions through political connections.
The good ol’ boy network. That’s why we’re screwed.
I do think we’re reaching a breaking point. Something has to happen. Unfortunately, it seems that the powers-that-be are trying to dam up all the clamoring for the rule of law, and unless somebody in the system realizes how badly they are endangering everything, something is gonna blow.
Drudge linked to an article from “The Hill” where some congressman was saying it will be wall to wall hearings on the birther issue if the pubs get majorities. Darrell Issa’s spokesperson said Issa will not investigate the eligibility issue. Maybe he’s lying because it’s politically expedient. I know that Darrell Issa has access to know that Obama has no legally valid birth certificate in Hawaii, because I faxed him the information and called the office to make sure that it was being passed on to him. If he and every other person with power refuses to enforce the rule of law, they are all creating a dammed-up situation that could be disastrous. They should recognize that.
I would think this would make it virtually impossible for Obama to run for re-election since any such certification by Pelosi et al would not escape challenge this time around.
That’s what I’m hoping about Issa. No way to know until we know, I guess. lol
My thoughts too.
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.