The “Failed to Qualify” Eligibility Issue

June 3, 2012 | Art in Idaho

[Art in Idaho]

Laugh and say I’m late to the party on this but my take on the whole eligibility thing is to approach it that Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC intentionally withheld the Long Form Birth Certificate either because it didn’t exist; showed Obama wasn’t NBC, or it contained embarrassing data to Obama. Either way, he failed to qualify and broke the law by withholding the long form birth certificate from the people who were supposed to review it. It’s my understanding that Pelosi and the DNC just “stated” Obama qualified and pushed through getting him on the ballot in each of the states. What behind the scenes shenanigans took place, we’ll never know. Bottom line, he illegally got on each state ballot – unless they can prove otherwise.

So, if he failed to qualify by showing no one the long form, he broke the law. He knowingly and willingly took the oath of office knowing he failed to qualify. It’s almost as if forget NBC, forget where he was born, forget who his father was; he failed to qualify because he flunked the qualification standard - he did not produce a birth certificate.

If he failed to produce the LFBC, and also he, as Ed Vieira said, "If Obama took the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he knowingly committed the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof." The “failed to qualify” and NBC are two separate but very important issues.

Serious issues:

1. SCOTUS needs to review this acute issue – the “failed to qualify” problem – and make a determination soon, before the election season gets in full gear. And if they get the response, “we showed the short form, twice,” then it’s a “so what?” That was after the election. Regardless if they are fraudulent forgeries, (though that’s certainly important), the issue is What was Presented before the 2008 election to get on the ballot? As far as we know, nothing, hence the fraud and perjury charges. He illegally “snuck in” to get on the ballot. Prove us wrong Pelosi. Show us what you saw to get him on the ballots. If you saw, examined, reviewed, double sourced and triple checked the authenticity of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate, then we’ll apologize. I don’t think you saw it at all.

2. SCOTUS and Congress needs to address the NBC issue either by constitutional amendment or new law stating exactly what NBC entails and appoint a reviewing body to ensure each Presidential candidate meets the requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

3. The Secretary of State of each state is bound by the same mandate, to ensure each Presidential candidate fulfills constitutional requirements. Documents reviewed, sourced, checked by three independent reviewing agencies and signed off.

4. The issue of anchor babies being allowed to be a candidate for president needs to be addressed, hopefully by # 2 above. Sooner or later, it will happen unless it is addressed. You want Ahmadinejad’s wife to fly to the USA, have her baby and eventually be eligible to run for President?

5. If Obama “failed to qualify,” then we are guided by US Constitution Amendment 20 (hat tip Flotsam_Jetsome):

“3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Are we going to demand a national proof of qualification to be on the Presidential ballot in 2012, or are we going to take the DNC’s word for it and set the stage for another “failed to qualify” fraud? Will the American people accept that?

So where do we go from here to get this issue resolved? Petition? A legal court case based solely on the “failed to qualify” issue?

[Art in Idaho]

Your child has to present his Birth Certificate to play little league baseball. How did Nancy Pelosi and the DNC get Obama on the ballot without having to show his Long Form Birth Certificate to comply with constitutional requirements?

Is "Failed to Qualify" an avenue worth pursuing? On the face of things, it sure seems so. If Obama "failed to qualify,", his Presidency is null and void. No positive proof of eligibility to date = No LFBC = No ballot!

Appreciate feedback from our esteemed Legal FReepers.

[FewsOrange]

Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election.

Have all previous presidents presented long form birth certificates before being placed on the ballot in each state?

[Mr Rogers]

To the best of my knowledge, no state requires a presidential candidate to show a birth certificate. I know Arizona just takes the word of the candidate’s party.

I’ve tried to get them to change that, but no luck so far.

And even the AZ law vetoed in 2010 would have allowed certification by Hawaii.

[Art in Idaho]

Have all previous presidents presented long form birth certificates before being placed on the ballot in each state?

Probably not. I was referring to the Constitutional mandate: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

My assumption has always been some agency of government guaranteed this before the person was allowed to be placed on the ballot. If an idedpendent verification body does not exist, it certainly should be instituted.

[I am Richard Brandon]

What would they do if if they gave a party and nobody came?
What would you do if you brought a lawsuit and nobody ruled?

[Art in Idaho]

I know Arizona just takes the word of the candidate’s party.

That obviously is no longer going to work. Hence the immediacy of getting this resolved in each state.

[ConjunctionJunction]

There is no independent mechanism for determining eligibility. That’s the problem.

[infool7]

“Welcome to the party, pal!” John McClane - Diehard

[Art in Idaho]

There is no independent mechanism for determining eligibility. That’s the problem.

For lots of reasons, this has to be addressed. I hope Congress will address this soon. We do not want a repeat of what happened in 2008. Do you trust the democrats at their word? "The end justifies the means." . . Okay, they will say the same about us. So be it. Then lets have an independent mechanism to determine eligibility.

[Baynative]

From an article in the Canada Free Press 9/10/2009:

"... the Democrat Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the job. The proper legal text used on the DNC Party “Official Certification of Nomination” document reads as follows, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The document is signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Colorado Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson. It is dated August 28, 2008.

However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself.

Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these “certified” candidates on the ballot.

The “Official Certification of Nomination” that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.

But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

[Star Traveler]

There was no law (no legal requirement) that a candidate had to show his birth certificate. It’s a good idea, but it’s never been a law.

What a candidate must do is swear to it that he meets the three conditions of the US Constitution, in order to run for the Office of President of the United States. The states themselves usually require this “swearing” (a legal document, by the way) that a candidate is qualified per the three requirements of the US Constitution. That’s what’s been required in the past.

And Obama and the Democrat Party both swore to that effect (again, a legal document).

SO ... if there is a law that is made that REQUIRES a candidate to show a birth certificate (certified by the state that he was born in) - then all the better.

Someone better get to work on that.

[Art in Idaho]

Wow, missed that article.

But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;

“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

Amazing. They left out ". . following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

They better put it in this time and be able to back it up with the LFBC. No more trusting the democrats. "Show me."

[Art in Idaho]

Thanks for the info. Didn't know about the "swearing" as a legal document. So that's as far as it goes then. As you say, "There was no law (no legal requirement) that a candidate had to show his birth certificate. It’s a good idea, but it’s never been a law." . . "Someone better get to work on that."

Obama aside, I hope Congress addresses this.

[Art in Idaho]

“Welcome to the party, pal!” John McClane - Diehard

Thanks! : ) I hope this issue doesn't go away. As I said above, Obama aside, these issues need to be resolved so this debacle never occurs again. Long gone are the days of taking the gentlemanly handshake word of the DNC.

[jaydee770]

Serious issues:

Even SERIOUSER issue:
Who in a position of authority with the ability to do *anything* about Obama's questionable eligibility has shown the slightest interest in pursuing anything beyond paying lip-service? To date, no one at the local, state or federal level has done more than "talk a good fight", as far as I am aware. Somebody please correct me if there has been any inquiry that has gained any traction towards a legal action that will stick.

So, I can appreciate all the points you are making and I have reasonable and prudent questions about Obama's eligibility. But good luck finding anyone to do anything about it.

[Jim Noble]

my take on the whole eligibility thing is to approach it that Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election

What law is that?

[Art in Idaho]

There was no law (no legal requirement) that a candidate had to show his birth certificate. It’s a good idea, but it’s never been a law.

On second thought, when it says, "No person, etc" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, isn't that "law enough," since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Understand, I'm not an attorney, but to my naive eye, doesn't "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;" cover it? Like I said, I just assumed someone vetted this. My duh. .

[Art in Idaho]

my take on the whole eligibility thing is to approach it that Obama broke the law by refusing to submit to anyone his long form, as required, before being placed on the ballot in each state prior to the Nov, 08 election

What law is that?

As I just said in #17, I assumed the Article II, "No person, etc" was the supreme law of the land and someone or some entity "checked this out." After all, we're talking about the President and the Constitution here. Come to find out, all the DNC has to do is "swear" to it and sign it. Means nothing to them. Do we trust Pelosi and the DNC? America now demands proof! Let's make this a formal legal process!

[Art in Idaho]

So, I can appreciate all the points you are making and I have reasonable and prudent questions about Obama's eligibility. But good luck finding anyone to do anything about it.

I wish there was some big group, Heritage?, or some legal firm that would take this on. It needs to be resolved somehow, someway, for posterity if nothing else. This whole thing has been such a mess from the get go.

[FreeInWV]

Someone with standing could bring a court case. But as we saw in ‘08, they maust have standing. That would either be a State AG or the GOP nominee. I doubt we will get either.

Of course Ol’ Mittens could just say “Its time for us to put all of this behind us. Produce it already!” We know that will never happen....

[Cboldt]

-- My assumption has always been some agency of government guaranteed this before the person was allowed to be placed on the ballot. --

We voters don;t vote for a candidate, we vote for an elector, and essentially, we vote for a political party.

Anyway, that detail aside, your assumption is not a good one.

Plus, now we have the wide-open issue of definition of Natural Born Citizen, and nobody wants to touch it. 100% of Congress has opened the door to anchor-baby presidencies.

[Art in Idaho]

Plus, now we have the wide-open issue of definition of Natural Born Citizen, and nobody wants to touch it. 100% of Congress has opened the door to anchor-baby presidencies.

We the People want this 'touched.' How to get it done is another matter. A new president and congress is a start. Remember in November America.

[Cheerio]

Your child has to present his Birth Certificate to play little league baseball. How did Nancy Pelosi and the DNC get Obama on the ballot without having to show his Long Form Birth Certificate to comply with constitutional requirements?

Piglosi LIED, and that paper trail exists. It is that simple. No politician or SCOTUS want to be blamed for starting CW2 - therefore nothing will be done about this fraud ever - by either corrupt political party.

Calling Donald Trump: Pelosi manipulated Obama certifications of eligibilty (2 versions!)

Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up?

[Art in Idaho]

Piglosi LIED, and that paper trail exists. It is that simple. No politician or SCOTUS want to be blamed for starting CW2 - therefore nothing will be done about this fraud ever - by either corrupt political party.

If the paper trail exist, can't something be done? I've read many people are concerned about CW2 over this, but would it really come to that? Only one way to find out. .

[Steven Tyler]

Obama flubbed the “public” oath of office.
0bama opted for the oath of office, “take #2” in private.

Nobody can prove 0bama recited the oath of office

[jdirt]

3. The Secretary of State of each state is bound by the same mandate, to ensure each Presidential candidate fulfills constitutional requirements. Documents reviewed, sourced, checked by three independent reviewing agencies and signed off.

This particular statement is timely. Each candidate has to “qualify” in each State. NJ Appellate Ct. tried to argue that having a mixture of qualifications in the 50 States is not good. They failed to realize that we don’t have federal elections. All our elections are State and each State allows or denies access to their ballots. What idiots.

I feel sorry for this country.

[Art in Idaho]

Thanks for the links. The Pelosi one interesting and mentioned above. Interesting.

“The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one,” he wrote. “One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama."

“The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of president is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama president.”

[Art in Idaho]

Thanks for the link. Will contribute what I can.

[Political Junkie Too]

Do you know where one begins to search the congessional record to read the debate on the failed to qualify section of the XX amendment?

-PJ

[wastoute]

When the highest office in the land is occupied by one who broke the law to get it all compliance is “voluntary”.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Have all previous presidents presented long form birth certificates before being placed on the ballot in each state?"

Some have, some have not. I believe Eisenhower did, although I don't feel compelled to look it up again just now.

No previous presidential aspirant has had as many (still unanswered and highly pertinent) questions surrounding their life narrative though, and that is a fact. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last one to put up forged identity documents, either. Of course, asking this guy to present bona fides to establish his eligibility to hold the presidency would be raaaacist, right?

"Probably not. I was referring to the Constitutional mandate: 'No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.'

My assumption has always been some agency of government guaranteed this before the person was allowed to be placed on the ballot. If an idedpendent verification body does not exist, it certainly should be instituted."

Part of qualifying for the office is to meet the eligibility requirements for said office. For all we know, "Obama" may actually be able to qualify to hold the office that he currently enjoys. He just hasn't actually demonstrated that he does, since his status as a NBC is absolutely in much doubt.

IF "Obama" is telling us the truth about his origins, then he is not a Natural Born Citizen and is therefore ineligible due to potential divided loyalties to hold the presidency and cannot possibly qualify for office. Even if he is somehow capable of qualifying for office, he hasn't done so yet, meaning it would appear that technically, Biden is at the helm of USS BS.

The 20th Amendment: 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

It doesn't matter if the various Secretaries of State allowed him on their State's ballots, that the general voters and the Electoral College voted to award him the job or even that he's been allowed to exercise the levers of power of the Executive all this time. These do not trump the Constitution.

The man has failed to demonstrably qualify for the office he currently occupies.

Like you Art, I too assumed (see what happens?) that there was some established, uniform and legal mechanism by which each and every presidential aspirant provide as a matter of formality even, a standard set of legal credentials establishing their eligibility for office.

Instead, it's more akin to a ride at an amusement park where the sign says riders must be a certain height to board, and depending on the operator (legal controlling authorities), they can use any kind of subjective standard they wish in granting access to the attraction. Most sane operators would put the would-be fun goer up against a yardstick before allowing them on.

Pinging a few people better versed than I on the constitutional (and historical and other legal) aspects of NBC and eligibility.

[Baynative]

The DNC -Pelosi, purposely changed standard wording that has always been used. They two questions are:

#1 WHY ...and
#2 Why wasn't the media, the justice department, the FEC or the RNC interested?

[Art in Idaho]

The man has failed to demonstrably qualify for the office he currently occupies.

Thank you for your cogent thoughts. The above sentence says it all. It's as if Obama doesn't have the $10 ticket to get into the movie. He "fails to qualify" to enter the theater. It's almost as simple as that. He may have the ticket but won't show it. You and I along with many others think he doesn't have the ticket and can't get one. If he "snuck in," can the theater owners, aka "We the People," kick him out?

Like you Art, I too assumed (see what happens?) that there was some established, uniform and legal mechanism by which each and every presidential aspirant provide as a matter of formality even, a standard set of legal credentials establishing their eligibility for office.

At the very least, the upshot of this mess will hopefully be the establishment of a uniform and legal mechanism to verify a Presidential candidate's eligibility to run for POTUS.

Pinging a few people better versed than I on the constitutional (and historical and other legal) aspects of NBC and eligibility.

Looking forward to their comments.

[LucyT]

. . . . Checking in for a minute. See article, and comments through # 34.

Note SP showed up. Wasn't s/ he told to stay off Eligibility threads? Those people just can't help themselves. Either that, or they are paid operatives.

Good summary, Art in Idaho.

[hoosiermama]

It has been the responsibility of the party to vet their candidate for qualification. Since Nancy P et al varied the notice of qualification, they are well aware that he is NOT qualified. SO when BO goes down, so do the Rats.

They are in panic mode because it is only if they keep control of congress and judges can they continue to perpetuate the fraud on the American people.

[hoosiermama]

Bay, have a handle on the issue...PLEASE contact Donald Trump....He seems to be the only person the MSM will give air time.

This is a much better issue then his blathering about the BC> It is something tangible that people can see and read for themselves.

The rest of us need to send both copies of the document to our congress critters, media contacts, email lists etc. with both of Bay's questions.

Better to question the DNC and be labeled “racists” then question BO.

[Uncle Sham]

"For lots of reasons, this has to be addressed. I hope Congress will address this soon."

Read the Twentieth Amendment once again.

"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

A few notes.

1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify", something they may have done on purpose in this instance depending upon the reasons why. National security? Who knows at this point.

3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.

4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.

Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".

[jaydee770]

It needs to be resolved somehow, someway, for posterity if nothing else

With mere months before the next election, I believe that the best we can hope for is an asterisk by his name in the history books.

[Baynative]

"PLEASE contact Donald Trump.."

It would probably be easier to just build my own space shuttle in the garage.

[Star Traveler]

All that has been necessary from the “states” to “meet that requirement” of the US Constitution is for someone to sign a notarized statement to the state (usually the state’s form for candidacy) and say that they meet those requirements.

You do it all the time yourself. You may not have to “prove” to a bank or some agency or “whatever organization” that you meet this qualification or that qualification. They simply ask you to sign it to the effect that you do meet the qualification. If you lie, you’ve committed a crime. But, you signing it saying that it’s true, comes under the penalty of the law if you’re lying, you see.

For example, you sign a statement to the IRS saying that you have no other income other than what you’ve indicated to them on the form. And then that’s all that is required. BUT, if they find out later that you’ve lied - you’re in a heap of trouble.

SO ... it’s not an unusual procedure as people do it all the time in their own everyday lives. They sign statements asserting that “this or that” is true - under the penalty of law.

That’s basically what the candidates have done in the past and what the states have required of them - simply stating under the penalty of law that they meet those requirements of the US Constitution.

The US Constitution doesn’t say that you “have to prove it” - it simply says that you have to “BE” all three of those requirements. The states have taken the “route” that simply does what you’ve done many times over again in signing some “legal affirmation” that is required of you (that you meet some qualification that is required of you).

The PROBLEM comes in only in the case someone has lied. If that’s the case, all that is required to disqualify someone is to provide proof of their lie and then they’re disqualified.

Or, if you want to “PREVENT” a problem from happening in the future, then one can take a pro-active stance on the issue and then require a certified birth certificate from the state that someone was born in - and make that being supplied with the application (for candidacy) a requirement.

It’s a simple thing - just require a certified birth certificate (whatever is required by courts for proof of birth in a state, or whatever is required for getting a drivers license, for instance) - to be submitted along with the notarized signature on the state form.

BUT ... once again ... as far as what has already happened in the past with prior candidates, no state has ever made a certified birth certificate from the state that the person was born in a requirement. They’ve only required a person state that they’re qualified and have the signature notarized. That’s the legal document that the candidate provides. If someone knows that the candidate is lying - then all they have to do is prove the lie.

[Art in Idaho]

Since Nancy P et al varied the notice of qualification, they are well aware that he is NOT qualified.

And I say can't each state's election board and/or each Secretary of State demand the constitutional wording be inserted before it is accepted in 2012?

But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote; “- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

[Art in Idaho]

This is a much better issue then his (Trump) blathering about the BC> It is something tangible that people can see and read for themselves.

Certainly agree people can understand the "Failure to Qualify" and the differences in the two documents. I hope he responds to this. Most people would say, "Hey, this just isn't right. . He didn't show any birth certificate? Yeah I get the birther stuff, was kinda' turned off by it. . But this, he refused to show anyone his birth certificate before the election." Maybe this will get some traction.

[Art in Idaho]

Thank you for the informative post. Very interesting.

Bears repeating:

Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".

[Art in Idaho]

Thank you for the great explanation regarding the agreement, trust and "give their word":

You may not have to “prove” to a bank or some agency or “whatever organization” that you meet this qualification or that qualification. They simply ask you to sign it to the effect that you do meet the qualification. If you lie, you’ve committed a crime. But, you signing it saying that it’s true, comes under the penalty of the law if you’re lying, you see.

The US Constitution doesn’t say that you “have to prove it” - it simply says that you have to “BE” all three of those requirements.

The PROBLEM comes in only in the case someone has lied. If that’s the case, all that is required to disqualify someone is to provide proof of their lie and then they’re disqualified.

Ahh, proof of their lie. Time to dig deeper and bring on the expert witnesses. .

[cynwoody]

Have all previous presidents presented long form birth certificates before being placed on the ballot in each state?

I don't think so.

Back in '52 the GOP had a candidate who was undocumented until the October before the election, despite having just won the biggest war in the history of the world.

Of course, even if he'd remained undocumented until the following January, he'd still have been eligible.

But it's nevertheless quaint and charming that they felt the need to document him anyway. Actually, the effort was more of a publicity stunt by Lonnie Roberts, who wanted to highlight that Eisenhower had been born in Denison. (But the whack-jobs of the day claimed it was a conspiracy to hide the fact General Eisenhower was Jewish, LOL).

[Art in Idaho]

Wow, that's great you found the newspaper clipping on Ike: "Ike gets Birth Certificate; Filed in Courthouse Here."

Now there was a real American. .

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"And then that’s all that is required. BUT, if they find out later that you’ve lied - you’re in a heap of trouble."

Okay, I just had a rather long ELOL.

[Diggity]

DNC never claimed he was qualified in the affirmation letter sent to the states naming him as the nominee.

Entire fault lies with the incompetent secretary of states in the US.

It’s their responsibility to determine if a person is eligible to be on the ballot and they are to blame.

[Eye of Unk]

Pelosi will be the fallguy so to speak.

being that I would be willing to bet sometime soon she may find her usefulness at an end and then she becomes a liability to Obama by testifying against him when she accepted the forms saying he was qualified and brushed off the question if it was verified.

And people wonder why there was such a contrived theatrical swearing in ceremony.