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??
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.
Sure nominate anyone, but who makes the final decision on eligibility?
Of possible interest.
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.
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.
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.
100% CORRECT
Qualifications mean nothing. Eligibility on the other hand.....
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??
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.”
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.
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.
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?
“affidavits of truth”
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.
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.
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.
Up til now, it's been mutually assured destruction.
Most likely, and may be why Team Clinton didn't snitch on Barry in 2008.
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.