Replies

Pivot - bull.

The facts do not change because we do not like them - the states have no requirement in their election law on how to vet, period.

It’s a sham and if we do nothing about it, in each of our states, we WILL have another Obama in our future.

Now, you are 100% correct on one part, in states where there was a legal challenge to Obama’s (or McCain’s) eligibility. Upon receipt of a the law of the state should state what the exact procedure and responsibilities the Sec. of Elections is bound by.

You also have the double whammy, in two states I can think of (Ca and Pa) where the judiciary is responsible for failing to do their jobs along with the Sec. of Election’s when a challenge formally filed and was brought into the legal system.

Here is where we go from negligence to outright duplicity. So far no court, including our own USSC has agreed to hear a single case on it’s merits. We wait now for the few remaining cases left.

I know Phil Berg and Ortiz has filed against Sec. of Elections in their respective states. Each case was thrown out on the standing issue.

All of this could have been avoided before the election took place. All it would have taken was for a few, if not all the states, to have have in their election law that any candidate for public office must provide signed releases for their birth certificates, school records, passport, selective service registration - whatever would be required to prove identification and eligibility.

Allowing the candidates themselves to provide the paperwork isn’t a viable option.

In effect there should be no difference between a person applying for an employment position which requires a background check and a person running for elected office.