Skip to comments.DEMS warned against certifying Obama eligible for White House
Posted on 09/08/2012 10:04:29 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Attorney Larry Klayman has warned Robert Bauer, the General Council to the Democrat National Committee, that members of the Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obamas eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges. (1)
Klaymanthe founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watchbases his warning on the fact that Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka refused to verify to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett the birth facts for Barack Hussein Obama that are claimed on the birth certificate posted on the White House website
In addition, Onaka undeniably failed to verify that the [birth certificate] image posted at whitehouse.gov is a true and accurate representation of the original record in [the DOH] files. (2)
On March 30th, Secretary Bennett filled out a standard request form, asking that Onaka verify as true that Barack Hussein Obama was born on...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
1) I love this idea.
2) Has this guy EVER won anything?
Those nagging little details like his fathers race being entered as “African” when that term was not used in the early 60’s ... and that stolen SS# that Barack still uses...
Not that I know of--but one of these days, I'm sure he will. The suits he brings at least causes a little more attention to, or reminder of, some of the things that need to be corrected.
Maybe if he keeps throwing stuff against the wall, something will stick...
Those of us whom believe zero is an undocumented illegal worker, pretty much have relegated the argument to the dead letter file, so THIS is an interesting situation.
DOES a second term president NEED to be re-certed ?
There are SO many situations this mulatto bastard has unfairly and confusedly put America in and through.
This is one of the big problems congress and the media are hoping to avoid. If it cannot be proven that Obama is eligible to serve, it will call into question the validity of bills he has signed into law and executive orders he has written. The arguments, debates and litigation could on for decades.
The people are getting the SHAFT. There isn’t ANY elegibility or they would be quick to provide it...it’s THAT easy. End of argument.
“DOES a second term president NEED to be re-certed ?”
No. Not ‘re certified’, but yes, ‘certified’.
The term of office is 2 years. Not 4.
So every presidential election period the candidates must be ‘certified’ to be eligible.
Why wait such a short period to revisit this travesty, bring this issue up now. I mean, it’s only been four short years, a nano-moment in history. I say, have Congress validate his second term now as President until 2016 simply bypass Romney all together so when the evidence that he is an illegal alien can finally be completed, we then get the chance to really put him away for a long time.
“The term of office is 2 years. Not 4.”
The term of office is 4 YEARS, not 8....
Not enough meds today!! :0)
What a load of horsesh*t. Onaka didn’t refuse to verify anything. He sent AZ the verification requested and confirmed that the information on the WH LFBC matched what is in Hawaii’s vital records.
There's also the argument that since he was fairly elected, his actions all count. But, if ineligible; was he "fairly" elected?
It's looking like the democrat party may have gone overboard in wanting to elect a black president so that they could play the race card when ever anyone disagreed with him or opposed his ideas.
"Four years ago the Democrat National Committee refused to certify that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
I don't believe that is true.
As I recall, there were two different Certifications sent out to the 57 (strike that) 50 states. The first was sent to all 50. One state rejected that Certification: Hawaii. They were sent a second version with the language noted above removed.
The Constitution does not allow someone who does not meet the eligibility requirements for President to legally serve no matter what the election results are. It's right there in the Constitution under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three:
"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".
Now, as to who has "standing". Any elected official at the state or federal level who took the oath of office in Article Six has standing, to demand that the Constitution be obeyed. This means that no judge can deny them the enforcement of their oath to "support the Constitution" if they have a question about whether or not any portion of that Constitution has not been adhered to. In this case, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 has clearly been IGNORED by the primary party instructed to act under it, Congress.
A push should be made upon those seeking Congressional seats for a commitment to insuring that the twentieth Amendment, Section Three will be enforced in accordance with the Constitution and that there be NO question about the eligibility of the next President allowed to go legally unanswered by those who might have cause to challenge it.
Larry Klayman is a clown. This birther stuff is never, ever going to go anywhere. Every moment wasted on it is a moment not spent doing useful things that could help remove Hussein from office.
Klayman has no standing.
Yeah...and they had the same typo at the end of the second line....though instead of the correct spelling through.....
I wonder if they will make the same mistake this time around.....snicker.
Not really. He made them resubmit the request.
...and confirmed that the information on the WH LFBC matched what is in Hawaiis vital records.
Yep. He said the info matched what they have, sort of. And he may only have a form filled out by grandma, so he can't vouch that any of the info is true at all. And he couldn't vouch that the WH PDF was any sort of official document. Weasel words.
By Barrys own account, he was adopted by Soetoro. So the official vital record should reflect that, with the original, if any, being sealed.
I think you have that backwards. I may be wrong, but as I remember it:
1. The phrase legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution. was not included on the original DNC certification to the 50 States.
2. Hawaii rejected that because they have a state law that requires the phrase/statement.
3. The Hawaii State DNC Chair refused to sign the new certification with the legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution. statement, but would not give a reason.
4. The Hawaii AG and some other high ups got together and approved the certification without the required DNC Chair’s signature.
At least, that’s what I remember reading about on some threads here on FR. Here’s one of the original articles:
There are more, and FR has threads in the archives - about April-June, 2011.
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.