All I have asked for is certified copies of the DNC and RNC Certification of Nomination forms for presidential elections 2008, 2004, and 2000. I would think that the 2008 ones are in PDF format and can be quickly accessed and emailed to me. I cannot imagine that the others would not be easily accessible as well."
- - - -
Obama for the state of Hawaii and did not state Obama was qualified under the US Constitution. According to Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113, it does not specify that the the Hawaiian DNC had to certify Obama in Hawaii but that a recognized party does it. It took the National DemoRat party to certify Obama to satisfy Hawaiian law.
- - - -
Hawaiian Law Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots). The Hawaiian DNC state party left out for Obama's certification that he is qualified under the US Constitutional, which is highlighted in the letter below.
Here is the Hawaiian DNC certification for Obama, which is missing the qualification under the US Constitution and for the state of Hawaii.
John Kerry's 2004 Hawaiian party DNC Certification. Notice that Kerry is qualified under the US Constitutional and for the state of Hawaii.
Al Gore's 2000 Hawaiian DNC party certification. You will also notice that he fully complies with Hawaiian Revised Statutes 11-113.
Enter Nancy Pelosi signed statement... because Hawaii did not fully certify Barack Hussein Obama. Pelosi signs the statement to fulfill the required Hawaiian law under Revised Statutes 11-113.
Repeat again from the letter,
"Hawaii Revised Statutes 11-113 (Presidential Ballots) provides that a recognized political party will provide the Office of Elections with following information prior to placing the names of its candidates for President and Vice President on the Presidential ballot:...."
- - - - -
Not in our lifetimes.
Great post RS!
Would you be so kind as to ping some of the anti-”birther” Trolls?
It’s SOO much fun to watch them deny the obvious!(LOL!)
Serving under "the provisions of the united States Constitution" (OR) Serving under "the provisions of the national Democratic Parties?
What's the big difference? (sarc)
Picky! Picky! Picky!
Interesting post and comparison of the different documents (Obama's vs. Kerry's vs. Gore's vs. Hawaiian Law).
I had never seen that before.
Indeed, 'legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution' vs. 'legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the Democrat party' ...
Quite a big difference. Thanks for the Post.
There is no doubt that the first certificate doesn’t contain the necessary information. But if you compare it to the other two, it’s because an entire line is missing, not just a few words. And because of that, the remaining sentence is ungrammatical: “...are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the National Democratic Party balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus...” If I weren’t a conspiracy theorist, I’d conclude it was probably just a simple cut-and-paste error—the same sort of computer error that left the island of birth information off that other Freeper’s form. I mean, I’d expect a conspiracy powerful enough to swap out microfiche in libraries across the country to at least be able to edit a sentence properly.