Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tenneesse Democrats admit Obama's lack of eligibility
scribd ^ | 06-22-2012 | edge919

Posted on 06/22/2012 7:24:18 AM PDT by edge919

Another ballot challenge has been dismissed, this one on the basis of legal standing. Most ballot laws allow any voter or citizen to challenge an ineligible candidate, but perhaps not Tennessee. But that's not the most interesting part of this legal decision. Instead, the Tennessee Democrat Party makes a baffling argument which includes a pretty obvious admission that they can't prove Obama is eligible for office:

"Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office."

What other point is there for making such an argument??


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; tennessee; tn
The NBC issue doesn't seem to get addressed at all in this decision. Most states requires the candidate to be eligible or to sign an oath attesting to their eligibility, so this statement from the TDP would fly in the face of such a law. "We don't need no stinkin' eligible candidates!!!"
1 posted on 06/22/2012 7:24:23 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: edge919

They have a point. You could nominate Donald Duck if you want — he just couldn’t serve as president. Nominating someone who is ineligible would seem to be a very stupid thing to do. But that doesn’t mean you can’t nominate such a person.


2 posted on 06/22/2012 7:27:11 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Sure nominate anyone, but who makes the final decision on eligibility?


3 posted on 06/22/2012 7:35:20 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Solicit money through the mail with the knowledge they can't serve as president if elected, you got mail fraud.
4 posted on 06/22/2012 7:36:57 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Of possible interest.


5 posted on 06/22/2012 7:39:26 AM PDT by AZ .44 MAG (Repeal Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"on the basis of legal standing"

I am sure that this was inserted into legal lore just to ensure that the lawyers maintain their control over the proles. It seems to have the effect of "if you are correct - you still lose" or "this can mean just what WE want it to mean" and even "it's our bat and ball - we make the rules." Since Dems are lawyers and lawyers are Dems - guess what this means.

6 posted on 06/22/2012 7:41:52 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Sure nominate anyone, but who makes the final decision on eligibility?
If everyone is “responsible," then no one is responsible.
The Democratic Party takes the position that it can nominate any crook it wants to - and yet it is entitled to have its candidate have a chance for victory. That’s precisely what happened in New Jersey, when the Dems renominated Sen Robert Torricelli even tho he was known to be a crook. After the cutoff date set by NJ law for replacing a nominee, the Dems realized that “the torch” couldn’t win, and convinced the NJ Supreme Court that they were entitled to have a candidate on the ballot who could win.

7 posted on 06/22/2012 7:43:35 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edge919

There’s a difference between being qualified to hold this office, and being eligible to do so. As the son of two citizen parents, born in the USA, I am certainly eligible, but I don’t claim to be qualified.

Obama is neither qualified nor is he eligible.


8 posted on 06/22/2012 7:48:29 AM PDT by Fresh Wind ('People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.' Richard M. Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office."

100% CORRECT

Qualifications mean nothing. Eligibility on the other hand.....

9 posted on 06/22/2012 7:48:42 AM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms for the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

In some states, the local party has to swear to the eligibility of their chosen candidate. Maybe this isn’t the case in Tennessee, but what would be the point in nominating someone who ultimately is NOT eligible for office unless that party is admitting they intend to break the law??


10 posted on 06/22/2012 7:49:05 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
No, the qualification argument is on the basis of Constitutional eligibility. This addressed elsewhere in the decision:
Plaintiffs begin by discussing their theory about President Obama’s citizenship and why they believe he is not qualified for his office.
The TDP acknowledges this is about Constitutional eligibility.
Defendants go on to argue that the interests which Liberty Legal Foundation seeks to protect, i.e. the right to have a constitutionally-qualified candidate on the ballot, are not germane to the organization’s stated mission to defend “basic human rights.”

11 posted on 06/22/2012 7:52:52 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I see this as a sign of Liberal mental illness or cognitive dissonance or something along those lines. They don't want to know the truth. This is another form of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Perhaps Obama is ineligible, but Tennessee isn't going to try to find out. Perhaps they hope that Obama will get enough votes that no one will have courage at the federal level to say "Stop! You can't be president!" After all, that is what happened last time. Pelosi signed two pieces of paper, artfully declaring Obama was eligible. John Roberts muffed the oath of office then had a do-over in private. There is plenty of evidence that at the highest levels they know Obama is not eligible and they do not care, because they are afraid of race riots. So, as long as states like Tennessee don't ask too many questions about eligibility, he can be put on ballots, he can be nominated, and he will just be waved on through to a second term.

12 posted on 06/22/2012 7:58:22 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Yet another court takes the cowards way out by shirking its duty on procedural grounds. Only ONE Obama eligibility suit has to date been decided on the merits and was “judicially butchered” by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi earlier this year.

The easiest and safest way for biased or cowardly judges to allow Hussein to continue in the White House is by ruling that questions of eligibility may not be pressed! Once again, a judge has done just that.


13 posted on 06/22/2012 8:07:48 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I still believe Bill & Hillary have the goods on ole Barry.

With Barry sinking in the polls, destined for landslide defeat, will they play their hand and challange Obamah at the convention to steal the nomination?

14 posted on 06/22/2012 8:15:32 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“affidavits of truth”


15 posted on 06/22/2012 8:19:30 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
I still believe Bill & Hillary have the goods on ole Barry.

Oh heavens yes. The vaunted Clinton detective squad headed by Jack Palladino.

The problem is the Chicago mob has the goods on the Clintons (Arkancide).

Up til now, it's been mutually assured destruction.

16 posted on 06/22/2012 8:19:35 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

I think it is unlikely that Otrud will not get a nomination unless he takes himself out.

I doublt Hidabeast would join a ticket doomed to failure so she will let Ozero stew in his own juices perhaps with someone other than Biteit. Some dem who is either not in office or going to lose in this race is a likely candidate. Since her majesty is getting up in years, would not be surprised to see her on the ticket and in a Oramadingdon and Pelousy.


17 posted on 06/22/2012 8:23:31 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

There’s part of me that wonders if Romney might have an October surprise for Obama. He’s never disowned Trump who continues to publicly question the Kenyan Coward™’s eligibility. Romney’s got a lot of cash, so he could go the distance on showing the Obama has defrauded the United States, along with the complicit Democrat party and basically destroy the party.


18 posted on 06/22/2012 8:27:14 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
Ahhhh yes, Arkancide! ..how soon we forget.

Up til now, it's been mutually assured destruction.

Most likely, and may be why Team Clinton didn't snitch on Barry in 2008.

19 posted on 06/22/2012 8:31:23 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever whomever it chooses to run as a candidate,
20 posted on 06/22/2012 8:34:55 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

“Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to butcher the English language as well as trample on the United States Constitution ... “


21 posted on 06/22/2012 8:37:14 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edge919

LOLOLOLOL!


22 posted on 06/22/2012 8:57:36 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: edge919

It begs the question.


23 posted on 06/22/2012 9:06:50 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (Il ny`a pas de quoi???`?? Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Stalin vs. Trotsky


24 posted on 06/22/2012 10:21:12 AM PDT by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: edge919
There’s part of me that wonders if Romney might have an October surprise for Obama.

I saw on another thread that the massive Morman geneaology records may have some bombshells for Obama.

25 posted on 06/22/2012 11:25:25 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

If Romney could prove Obama intentionally defrauded the American people and that many of the Democrats were in on it, that party would be toast.


26 posted on 06/22/2012 11:28:20 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

If Romney could prove Obama intentionally defrauded the American people and that many of the Democrats were in on it, that party would be toast.


27 posted on 06/22/2012 11:30:49 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AZ .44 MAG; TheOldLady; WildHighlander57; netmilsmom; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Tennessee Democrats admit Obama's lack of eligibility

Article and # 12. - # 7, too.

Thanks, AZ .44 Mag. Good find.

28 posted on 06/22/2012 12:07:13 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
This post has some good comments and a discussion on the 20th amendment. The “Failed to Qualify” Eligibility Issue

The 20th specifically states, speaking of vacancies in the P of VP office, 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

29 posted on 06/22/2012 12:32:34 PM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edge919

It is very odd that they include the “someone who is not eligible for office”.


30 posted on 06/22/2012 5:45:48 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Who burned up the Clinton’s Indiana location then...the one with all the tax records. (Yeah, right).

The Toon? He was in the state at the time.....


31 posted on 06/22/2012 5:53:09 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping.


32 posted on 06/22/2012 8:44:25 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

At least Donald Duck was born in America....


33 posted on 06/22/2012 10:35:48 PM PDT by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson