Posted on 01/05/2012 4:51:48 PM PST by GregNH
On Sep 9, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Benjamin Schler wrote: Dear Ms. Gotto, Thank you for your email inquiring about our office’s complaint process. We do not accept complaints regarding presidential candidates and their eligibility to run for office, because we are not the entity responsible for determining eligibility. I would be happy to discuss this matter in more detail with you over the phone. Please feel free to give me a call at 303-894-2200, ext. 6342. Thank you, Ben Schler Colorado Department of State Elections Division – Legal Specialist 1700 Broadway, Ste 200 Denver, CO 80290 p: 303-894-2200 x 6342 f: 303-869-4861
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Not my job. Looks like everywhere you look you find the “not my job” answer. And if you want the job you are told that you have no standing to get the tools to do the job.
Ready? Go!
So what IS “the entity responsible for determining eligibility”?
Actually there no real eligibility requirement in Colorado. And the it looks the the main thing the SoS is responsible for is to make sure Colorado gets their NAVA money from the Feds.
Colorado election law:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/LawsRules/files/Title1Final.pdf
In 2004 Colorado let a blatantly ineligible from Nicaragua be on the Presidential ballot.
So the response should not have been too surprising.
Call me - I don’t want an email trail...
Madam for your information this call is being recorded.
While your first sentence sounds reasonable, there is a problem with the second. Obama told us he was not a natural born citizen, and clearly takes the position that he considers the requirement irrelevant. He didn't refuse to offer his credentials; he told us he was not a natural born citizen and knew, both parties having offered candidates who were not natural born citizens, that he would not be challanged by anyone with the political clout to gain standing.
Even Obama's constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe, in a letter attempting to whitewash McCain's questionable eligibility, asserted that McCain was eligible because both of his parents were citizens. So did judge and Homeland Security Dir. Michael Chertoff in hearings for SR511, April 2008. Obmaa told us, and everyone knew, that he, Obama, was a naturalized citizen, presuming he was born in the US. Citizens are either natural, or naturalized. It was McCain's ineligibility, too familiar to both Democrats and Republicans after six congressional hearings, that insured silence from Republican legislators asked to vet Obama just as they had tried, unsuccessfully, to confirm McCain's eligibiilty. Arizona's own Rogers Professor at U of Arizona, Gabriel Chin, wrote the most thorough analysis of why McCain couldn't be president.
Precedence established by Minor v. Happersett confirmed the common-law definition understood by our framers (every definition in the Constitution comes from our common language and common law at the time, except that for treason). Minor was cited dozens of times by subsequent cases, including Wong Kim Ark. Obama offered his credentials and made no secret of his disdain for the Constitution or for the precedence established by the Supreme Court. Why should we be surprised at non-recess appointment, nationalization of corporations, attempts to circumvent congress's authority to authorize debt, promise to create a parallel military?
You should read Professor Chin’s brief and educate yourself on that point.
The same holds true for Congresspersons and federal judges including USASC.
I would like references for this besides Arther who scammed the electorate by means of poor publicity.
Your opinion is simply not supported by our law Aruanan. There was a bill passed in 1790, a Nationality Act, which made such a claim, but had no authority to do so, and which was repealed in 1795. A child born overseas to citizen parents is born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. There is but one definition for natural born citizenship, that, as is every other term used in our Constitution, came from our common-law, affirmed by our greatest Chief Justice John Marshall, was “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Marshall cites Vattel’s Law of Nations, but the term, synonymous with "Native," was in common use along with its Latin components, jus soli and jus sanguinis. Different nations created variations too numerous to repeat here, but Vattel, our Nation's first law book, was, as Marshall said, the most concise.
Because the case, The Venus, 12 US 253, containing the statement did not depend upon that definition, it was properly called “dictum.” But Minor v. Happersett did depend upon that definition, because natural born citizens were the only citizens defined by our Constitution before 1868. Minor turned common law into positive law, precendt, so there is no other definition.
Citizens can be made by Congress, naturalized, and such a citizen, born overseas to citizen parents is so defined, based upon the 14th Amendment. All citizens defined by law, by US Code, are naturalized citizens. Barack Obama is a naturalized citizen because his mother was a citizen, and because he was born, like every anchor baby, on our soil. John McCain was not born on soil over which the US had soveeignty, whether in Colon Hospital, as the birth certificate posted on the Internet shows, or somewhere in the Canal Zone. A treaty was signed in 1938 asserting US sovereignty over The Canal Zone.
I believe, and would vote had I the authority, for an amendment to include the children of two citizens in the military born on foreign soil as "reputed natural born citizens" as the 1790 bill tried to do, but in which not one of twenty six or twenty seven attempts, has succeeded, amending Article II Section 1. McCain knew that only too well. We owe Obama to McCain's personal ambition.
McCain was not the only candidate who tried. Chester Arthur succeeded in hiding his father's British citizenship. Charles Evans Hughes tried in 1916, but was exposed by a Democrat attorney with a lengthy article in our most popular legal newspaper, for Hughes' having two British parents, and Hughes was a Supreme Court justice. Had he defeated Woodrow Wilson he certainly would have been challenged by Breckenridge Long, who was later in Roosevelt's State Department. We probably would have been better off with Hughes. Ironically Hughes later admitted Minor v. Happersett to the Perkins v. Elg decision, in which Marie Elg, born to parents who were citizen in New York, even though she was raised in Sweden by her parents who left the US repudiating their citizenship, could become president after returning to the US for 14 years and reaching the age of 35. Undoubtedly Hughes knew the law and decided he was above it. Our rights depend upon our being the first nation of laws, not a monarchy, even while the laws do not always impose a justice we prefer. That is why we can change laws. But men like McCain and Obama whom we allow to ignore laws which impeded their ambitions are dangerous, as we can plainly see.
I agree he told us and I pointed that out in my blog back in January of ‘09. I also agree that everyone who may have spoken up didn’t. Political correctness at its extreme. The thrust of my point was the massive outcry for him to release documents and that he simply refused to do so. Of course the joint session of Congress did not ask for objections to the results of the EC. I have played that video many times and it appears that something was amiss at the point where Cheney would have or should have asked for objections. But that is all water under the bridge at this point.
My fear is that he finishes his term and we are stuck with precedence that will probably destroy this nation in due time. If we can have him declared a usurper on some level we may be able to save our republic.
That is my fear too Greg. Until Obama and McCain became opponents the media, the legislators, the talking heads on the left and right, the New York Times, Washington Post, all spent hours, hearings, and air time on McCain's eligibility. I have a dozen legal essays from presumably reputable professors and law firms in my files. Now the issue is dismissed as crack pot “Birther” fodder. It tells you more about what really motivates people, and also demonstrates the meaning of “feet of clay.”
Pundits get paid to talk or opine, but will now have their audiences diminished, their book sales curtailed, their incomes diminished for avoiding the truth. Levin writes powerfully about our Constitution and foundations, but won't discuss Article II, other than to point out that there is no path to resolving the issue. He talks about Bastiat, but avoids the most frequently cited and most used resource, Vattel’s Law of Nations. He avoids our greatest Chief Justice John Marshall and the dozens of cases remarking about our never doubted common-law definition for natural born citizenship. Minor v. Happersett is savaged by Soros acolytes, who publish scrubbed decisions on the most popular legal archive on our Internet and there is not a peep. Those are feet of clay.
Sounding authoritative is a talent. Talking truth means avoiding no truths. Unfortunately, there is no necessary association between those qualities. There are very few who both have read our framers, and who will honestly discuss the issues guiding our framers who put together such a cohesive and coherent collection of ideas to protect individual freedoms. The only path I see is to continue to clarify the issues which you and I have realized constitute the truth, and have faith that truth will prevail as long as we have a free press.
Requiring the official recognition of allegiance to our Constituion of the parents of our President, citizenship, is eminently wise. The British from whom we separated don't even permit naturalized citizens as Obama describes himself - a “Native born citizen of the U.S.” is a naturalized citizen - to be Members of Parliament.
Leo Donofrio, to whom we owe much of the credit for the legal research exposing the perfidy of so many lawyers, is writing a book. Let's see if his book sales reveal the truth of what concerns citizens who see enough to know they have been conned, and not just by confidence man in chief. I'll not be surprised if his advance sales dwarf the real sales of our presumed pundits, Levin, Coulter, etc. etc.
Mario Appuzo, another lawyer of Italian origins, has tirelessly and patiently exposed our historical foundations, showing how ineffectual are our educational institutions. His writing could, and given all his efforts, should be compiled and sold. Rxsid and Bushpilot1 on Free Republic have scoured paper archives, archives which have not been scrubbed by would-be dictators, to expose us to the real meaning of our common law. I don't know their personal constraints, but have encouraged them both to publish a collection of the historical documents they have uncovered (the latest revelation of Madison's published article on the McClure case, exposing the clarity and intent of Madison's understanding of citizenship, exposing the uncertainty around who were citizens, since Virginia's and South Carolina's definitions were inconsistent, as noted by Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, was an Rxsid discovery, ably interpreted by Donofrio and published on naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com).
The truth is there, as professors of law, such as Robert Berring at UC.s Boalt Law school know perfectly well about the corrupted legal documents. They assign students exercises which expose the perfidy of commercial “free” sites. The free sites, following the Solyndra pattern, are “hustles.” Their financial support comes not from advertizing, not from fees for their service as with Lexis and Westlaw, but from political interests with a long range strategy which involves shaping the American perceptions about what is legal, so that when the Constitution is ignored, proof in original documents will only be accessible to those with access to historical archives. One must assume that eventually, even those historical documents will disappear, just as Egyptian Muslims are destroying millions of historical documents to protect the tyranny the need to protect their authority.
Tim Stanley's Justia.org and Carl Malamud's publicresources.org are sponsored in major part by George Soros’ Society for American Progress. Malamud was/is Soro’s Chief Information Officer. Malamud hopes to get rich by publishing “PACER” documents openly. Both of them demonstrated their fealty to the left by scrubbing legal documents, twenty five cases with citations to Minor v. Happersett by Stanley, at least a whole paragraph from Ex Parte Lockwood on the Cornell site by Malamud. Malamud has sponsored, with Soros and other funding sources, dozens of symposia at most of our major law schools. (look on YouTube for law.gov lectures) His role, whether for financial or political purposes, is corrupting our foundation as a nation of laws.
The chusing of electors is entirely a function of the State Legislature.
That body can set any rules, or no rules, regarding determination of eligibility. It is not an administrative matter.
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.