Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Usurper Detection Legislation Should Be Passed Within Each State
10-30-2009 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 10/30/2009 3:00:46 PM PDT by Uncle Sham

Since it appears that the judicial branch is intent on abandoning it's duty to uphold the Constitution, perhaps it's time for the states themselves to individually pass legislation that will protect their citizens from the actions of anyone who illegally occupies the Oval office.

There is nothing to prevent a state from passing a law requiring that the President must file his PROOF of meeting eligibility requirements with the state and that such a filing is open to public challenge in court.

Such a law could stipulate that any legislation signed by a President who refuses or is unable to meet this requirement to file shall be declared null and void within the borders of the state. No orders affecting any of the states citizens from such a usurper would have legal standing within the borders of the state. In addition, the act could command all legislators at the national level to institute whatever legal mechanism is required to challenge the standing of such a usurper.

It seems to me, any state-passed law that ENFORCES the Constitution would be judged as "Constitutional". Perhaps this can be done through a ballot initiative if the legislators refuse to look into it. We do not have to WAIT until the next Presidential election to handcuff a possible usurper. This can be done NOW and immediately protect a state's citizens from having to live with ILLEGALLY made legislation or orders.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: article2section1; bho; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; colb; colbaquiddic; eligibility; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamacolb; passport; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last
Where do we get this started? Any state able to do this would gain lots of new citizens AND capital investment.
1 posted on 10/30/2009 3:00:46 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Try to find a state that hasn’t sold thier soul to these marxists in Washington by accepting stimulous monies.


2 posted on 10/30/2009 3:03:28 PM PDT by ronnie raygun (Leaders who refuse to lead will be lead by the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

You’re thinking along the right lines, but the state legislators are politicians, and they have all proven to be craven cowards on this issue. We should push them hard, but not rely on them. Every Freeper should know the state laws for ballot certification and be ready to sue before 2012 conventions. Lawsuits in every state!!


3 posted on 10/30/2009 3:10:28 PM PDT by ccruse456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

A hundred years from now, this era will be written up in American history books as a period of unparallelled self-indulgence, intellectual weakness, and personal and political dishonesty.

Unfortunately, at the rate - and in the direction - the nation is going, those books will be written in Chinese.


4 posted on 10/30/2009 3:15:04 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Actually, it would only take a few states to do this in order to make sure a candidate was qualified. Any candidate that failed to register in even one state would be drummed out of the election process.


5 posted on 10/30/2009 3:16:50 PM PDT by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
I agree this is exactly the way to go. However it should be broader than just proof that the candidate is a "Natural Born Citizen". The Statute should require each candidate to provide a waiver for any academic or medical records so that we the people have the maximum amount of information about anyone who might be elected to the most poweful office in the world.

It only needs three or four states to pass this type of legislation to make it effective nationally. No National candidate is going to forsake running in a state that he ( or She) might win.

6 posted on 10/30/2009 3:19:29 PM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laserman
"Any candidate that failed to register in even one state would be drummed out of the election process"

This legislation can be passed NOW and apply NOW to any and all acts by a "potential" usurper. It doesn't have to wait until an election cycle.

7 posted on 10/30/2009 3:19:51 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

You don’t have to go that far... All we have to do is have a couple of States pass a law that forces anyone applying to be on the ballot for elective office to prove that they are qualified to hold the office. If they do not prove that, then the state does not put them on the ballot. If California, or New York, or Texas or a couple of other states did that, game over. No one could be elected without these few states having them on the ballot.


8 posted on 10/30/2009 3:22:56 PM PDT by MS from the OC ("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat
"The Statute should require each candidate to provide a waiver for any academic or medical records so that we the people have the maximum amount of information about anyone who might be elected to the most powerful office in the world."

Absolutely true as well as provide instant "standing" to any resident of the state to challenge legality of potential usurper.

9 posted on 10/30/2009 3:24:13 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

I say pass this now and have it apply now. If the present person in the Oval office is legal, he shouldn’t have any problems with such legislation, nor should his supporters.


10 posted on 10/30/2009 3:26:42 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

The Statute would have to carefully define the form of proof otherwise we would have endless litigation about whether a “Certificate of Live Birth” was actually proof. In effect it would be necessary for the candidate to waive all rights to privacy regarding the documentation only thus could you ensure that there were no games being played.


11 posted on 10/30/2009 3:29:54 PM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

"... unparallelled self-indulgence, intellectual weakness, and personal and political dishonesty ..." anyone in particular in mind?
12 posted on 10/30/2009 3:32:08 PM PDT by TurtleUp ([...Insert today's quote from Community-Organizer-in-Chief...] - Obama, YOU LIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Just guessing but I doubt we could get Jenny Granholm to support it.


13 posted on 10/30/2009 3:33:21 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

If such a law was passed it would be important to get a “Strawman” to start the litigation immediately, otherwise the 2012 election would just start the process and it would take 2-3 years to wend its way though the state courts and the US Supreme Court.


14 posted on 10/30/2009 3:37:52 PM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; xzins

This idea is complete nonsense. No conservative or libertarian candidate will get on a ballot in any presently blue state in time for an election because their “evidence” of eligibility will be challenged by the left wing equivalents of the present “birther” crowd in the state courts and tied up there for months. The same will be true for liberal candidates in red states.

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that this whole birther thing is just anarchism/nihilism masquerading as patriotism in order to destroy this country from within.


15 posted on 10/30/2009 3:39:11 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

Many states have a petition process. We should force the issue through petition processes.


16 posted on 10/30/2009 3:39:55 PM PDT by Laserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Best idea I’ve heard in a long time. The Feds, in any branch of government, won’t do anything, maybe the states can.


17 posted on 10/30/2009 3:42:26 PM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

It doesn’t apply to “candidates” for President. It applies to “usurpers” who happen to sneak through to the Oval office when Congress FAILS to ENFORCE section three of the Twentieth amendment. If the President is a legal one, he should have no problem providing PROOF to EVERY state that ask for it.


18 posted on 10/30/2009 3:43:07 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun
"The Feds, in any branch of government, won’t do anything, maybe the states can."

And if the "states" won't, the PEOPLE can through ballot initiatives.

19 posted on 10/30/2009 3:45:11 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Do you understand ANYTHING about how the court system works?

You know, ideas like yours, if they got any broad publicity, would loose more votes for us that Obama’s policies loose for the left. Face it, what you are proposing will shut down our electoral system. Is that what you want? That’s what it looks like.


20 posted on 10/30/2009 3:50:32 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
No conservative or libertarian candidate will get on a ballot in any presently blue state in time for an election because their “evidence” of eligibility will be challenged by the left wing equivalents of the present “birther” crowd in the state courts and tied up there for months.

If part of the statute requires a general waiver of privacy then the fear of the press should deter any candidate who does not have a clear claim to be a " Natural Born Citizen".

Either you believe that the Articles of the Constitution should be enforced or you can forget the whole thing. As far as I'm concerned it means what it says and its articles should be enforced.

21 posted on 10/30/2009 3:51:34 PM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

Do it! Do it now!


22 posted on 10/30/2009 4:09:23 PM PDT by rwoodward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Do you understand ANYTHING about how the court system works?
........what you are proposing will shut down our electoral system.

Ace, our court system is broken, judges making law out of thin air and selectively enforcing law or not.
Our electoral system is also broken with widespread voter fraud and corruption. It's getting worse every year.
Open your eyes, we're losing the country.

23 posted on 10/30/2009 4:11:54 PM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I was under the impression that this was part of the process of the Secretaries of State when they certified the elected officials. ???

Not true?

Aren’t candidates for the office of president supposed to supply their credentials when they submit their vitaes? Or, if they just sign a sworn statement to the effect that they are eligible and it turns out that they aren’t, then isn’t that voter fraud?


24 posted on 10/30/2009 4:13:14 PM PDT by quintr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

“If part of the statute requires a general waiver of privacy then the fear of the press should deter any candidate who does not have a clear claim to be a “ Natural Born Citizen”.”

Why? A challenge can be presented against a candidate today and could have been presented in 2008. What’s different?

“Either you believe that the Articles of the Constitution should be enforced or you can forget the whole thing. As far as I’m concerned it means what it says and its articles should be enforced.”

Do you think YOU have Art. III standing to enforce Art. II sec 1? If an Obama presents what Hawaii provides for a bc, what right do YOU have to challenge that? I submit that it is highly unlikely, unless you are let’s say a state secretary of state or perhaps a candidate for president, that you have any standing at all and any suit filed by you would be an attempt to unlawfully disrupt an election and cause chaos in America leaving us open to an assault by our enemies.

I suggest that instead of nonsense and perhaps sedition, we concentrate on finding and electing candidates who support a conservative line, however that might be defined.


25 posted on 10/30/2009 4:13:49 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“You know, ideas like yours, if they got any broad publicity, would loose more votes for us that Obama’s policies loose for the left. Face it, what you are proposing will shut down our electoral system. Is that what you want? That’s what it looks lik”

That’s Crazy Talk... So you think non-citizens should be able to tun for president and nobody check? If the federal government isn’t going to check, the only thing left is for the states to check.


26 posted on 10/30/2009 4:15:49 PM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis


I’m becoming increasingly convinced that this whole birther thing is just anarchism/nihilism masquerading as patriotism in order to destroy this country from within

Peddle your swill somewhere else Obama rumpswab.
27 posted on 10/30/2009 4:16:28 PM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Yonder stands your orphan with his gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

“Ace, our court system is broken, judges making law out of thin air and selectively enforcing law or not.
Our electoral system is also broken with widespread voter fraud and corruption. It’s getting worse every year.
Open your eyes, we’re losing the country.”

No, our court system is NOT broken and we are not losing our country. The dismissal of the idiotic birther cases is proof positive of that. What was lost was an election, not the country! But even if the court system is broken, do you suggest that a nihilist/seditionist program of electoral disruption, a denial of the people’s right to vote because you might not like the result, is what is called for? That sounds more like the program of Chavez and his fellow travelers more than the Founders.


28 posted on 10/30/2009 4:19:09 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: babygene

“That’s Crazy Talk... So you think non-citizens should be able to tun for president and nobody check? If the federal government isn’t going to check, the only thing left is for the states to check.”

It is huh? Understand this, Obama presented proof of natural born status sufficient to get on the ballot in all 50 states and the voting territories. What gives YOU any authority to question that? By the way, it is THE STATES, usually through their secretaries of state, which decide who is on their ballots for president.


29 posted on 10/30/2009 4:22:31 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

“Peddle your swill somewhere else Obama rumpswab.”

Do you honestly think your birther nonsense will get votes for conservative candidates? You will lose votes! Like I said, I am increasingly convinced that the birther element in this country really is out to subvert the constitution and replace the system with a form of nihilism/anarchism in the interests of the enemies of this country. Having been frustrated in its attempts to foment mutiny in the ranks of the military in time of war, to the enormous advantage of our enemies, it now seeks to disrupt elections and engender chaos to the advantage of the very same foreign enemies.


30 posted on 10/30/2009 4:26:11 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“Understand this, Obama presented proof of natural born status sufficient to get on the ballot in all 50 states and the voting territories. “

More Crazy Talk. I suggest you do some research,

ACTUALLY, he didn’t present anything to the 50 states. And neither did congress...


31 posted on 10/30/2009 4:29:29 PM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

There’s not a person I know that thinks Barry Soetoro is a Natural Born Citizen. Most think he’s an illegal alien. This issue has gone viral and is exposing your hero for the FRAUD THAT HE IS......The more he refuses to release ANY of his records, the bigger this issue gets.

Put down the glue bag and pull your head out of your puckered sphincter.


32 posted on 10/30/2009 4:37:31 PM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Yonder stands your orphan with his gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: babygene

“More Crazy Talk. I suggest you do some research,”

How so and what research? Research into what the birther crowd is really after? I think the courts have exposed that just fine.

“ACTUALLY, he didn’t present anything to the 50 states. And neither did congress...”

Really? Was he asked? If not, maybe no one, I mean really no one, thought it was worth discussing. In any event, Obama would have produced lawful proof of his birth in Hawaii. The real question was whether or not McCain qualified. But the election of McCain wouldn’t have caused birthers to attempt to foment mutiny or chaos now would it!?


33 posted on 10/30/2009 4:38:03 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

“Put down the glue bag and pull your head out of your puckered sphincter.”

Classy, well thought out response, EG. Did you learn your debating skills at the same outfit that joke Orly Taitz went to?


34 posted on 10/30/2009 4:40:32 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

How does that explain the Nicaraguan who got on many state ballots? Hmmm??


35 posted on 10/30/2009 4:52:01 PM PDT by Suz in AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Suz in AZ

“How does that explain the Nicaraguan who got on many state ballots?”

You mean Calero? My assumption is that the secretaries of state in the offending states didn’t do their job. They should be fired by the people of their states. I am assuming, by the way, that Calero never claimed to be a natural born citizen of the United States and did not produce a perfectly lawful birth certificate saying he was.


36 posted on 10/30/2009 4:58:04 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
a denial of the people’s right to vote because you might not like the result,

No Ace, I want a denial of the right to vote to people who do not have the right to vote under our laws (illegal aliens and non citizens).
I do not want people to cast multiple votes in the same election.
I do not want dead people to cast votes.
I do not want criminal organizations to cast multiple votes for people who do not exist.
I do not want convicted felons to cast votes.
I do not want people to cast votes for a carton of cigarettes or a twenty dollar bill.

Any of that you don't understand, Ace?

37 posted on 10/30/2009 5:26:56 PM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Why? A challenge can be presented against a candidate today and could have been presented in 2008. What’s different?

What's different is that under a carefully crafted statute the onus would be on the candidate to produce to the Secretary of State proof positive, using original documentation, that he/she is a natural born citizen and in addition there would be a general waiver of privacy to enable those who would enquire and verify to do so. Should they discover evidence that the candidate is not who he/she says they are and produce it to the secretay of State it would enable the Secretary to refrain from placing that persons name on the ballot.

Do you think YOU have Art. III standing to enforce Art. II sec 1?

I might not have standing but a statutorialy empowered Secretary of State within a state certainly would. The Supreme court has consistently held that each state is responsible for the conduct of its elections.

Any suit filed by you would be an attempt to unlawfully disrupt an election and cause chaos in America leaving us open to an assault by our enemies. I suggest that instead of nonsense and perhaps sedition,

You seem very melodramatic and overwrought by this proposal so let me ask you a question. Suppose, arguendo, that someone produced dispositive evidence that the present incumbent of the White House was born in a country other than the United States in circumstances that would render him ineligible to be President would you agree that he should not be President ?

38 posted on 10/30/2009 5:40:26 PM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

“Any of that you don’t understand, Ace?”

My name’s not “Ace”, Frenchie.

And I understand all of what you wrote. Just what do you plan on doing about those problems; disrupt elections like this article proposes until you are satisfied about the bona fides of the voters or perhaps the result? Take the law into your own hands because you think “the court system is broken”? By what right or authority? If your local officials are allowing unlawful voting to occur, you should have those officials fired. If that’s going on, why haven’t you had your local officials fired?


39 posted on 10/30/2009 5:51:06 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"Face it, what you are proposing will shut down our electoral system. Is that what you want? That’s what it looks like"

What it looks like is you can't comprehend what you read. My proposal has NOTHING to do with elections. It has EVERYTHING to do with the election of a usurper. I'll explain this to you ONE more time. Do you know what a "usurper" is?

A "usurper" is someone who occupies an office he is not legally allowed to occupy. Thus, a "usurper" has already "won" an election, except it was won fraudulently. My proposed legislation would address protecting the citizens of a state from the actions of this illegal "usurper" by placing requirements of him that the U.S. Constitution already calls for at the federal level on the state level as well. If he's "legal", there should be no problem proving it to the states as they are simply ENFORCING the Constitution as it is currently written.

If he is illegal, the states would disallow him to affect anything legislatively upon their citizens. All of this is after an election is done. It strengthens the ENFORCEMENT of the Constitutional requirements for President and Vice President while reducing the chances that usurpation can occur. Pretty simple fix in my opinion.

As to your concerns about how this would be judicially treated, their job is to ENFORCE the LAW. If this is a state LAW, they must obey and enforce it. Period. Kinda neat, huh?

40 posted on 10/30/2009 5:55:54 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
I don't suffer trolls, fools or liberals too well.
Bye, bye Ace.
41 posted on 10/30/2009 6:01:41 PM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

“What’s different is that under a carefully crafted statute the onus would be on the candidate to produce to the Secretary of State proof positive, using original documentation, that he/she is a natural born citizen and in addition there would be a general waiver of privacy to enable those who would enquire and verify to do so.”

Any secretary of state can require that now and in Obama’s case such a secretary of state would have received a perfectly legal Hawaii bc...the same one used to get a passport. So what’s different?

“Should they discover evidence that the candidate is not who he/she says they are and produce it to the secretay of State it would enable the Secretary to refrain from placing that persons name on the ballot.”

Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?

“I might not have standing but a statutorialy empowered Secretary of State within a state certainly would. The Supreme court has consistently held that each state is responsible for the conduct of its elections.”

You are right, you don’t have standing. A secretary of state likely wouldn’t have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that there’s no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely).

“Suppose, arguendo, that someone produced dispositive evidence that the present incumbent of the White House was born in a country other than the United States in circumstances that would render him ineligible to be President would you agree that he should not be President ?”

I’ve practiced law for 33 years. I’ve heard more times than I could count claims that one party or another has “dispositive evidence” which will end a case. More often than not the party doesn’t have that evidence and a trial demonstrates that. Trials are very good at finding the truth. In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly “dispositive evidence” really is dispositive. If it is, and the sitting president is not qualified, then he should be removed. That’s how the Constitution provides, T.


42 posted on 10/30/2009 6:04:00 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

“I don’t suffer trolls, fools or liberals too well.”

Well good for you, Frenchie!


43 posted on 10/30/2009 6:05:18 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: quintr
The Constitution has provided for the "vetting" process of a President with section three of the Twentieth 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.

Basically, Congress is instructed to act in two instances, the death of a President elect OR "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify". Since they are instructed to act, they MUST be made aware that each circumstance either exist or doesn't exist. This means that Congress had to know whether or not the President elect met all "qualifying" requirements for the office of President, including eligibility standards. They didn't perform their job or if they did, none of them admit to having done so. They are all guilty of breaking their oaths of office to "support this Constitution" in Article six. By the way, since the text reads "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify", it is HIS duty to submit proof of qualifications and not the burden of Congress to beg him to do so. If he doesn't submit, then he has "failed to qualify" and CANNOT legally be President.

My proposal would have the states require a copy of his "Proof" to Congress be inspected by the states before any acts of his can affect their citizens. Basically, ensuring that the states will do what Congress fails, forgets, or refuses to do according to the instructions of section three.

44 posted on 10/30/2009 6:14:06 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

You don’t have much confidence in the system the Founders gave us, do you Uncle S? For all the talk the birthers spout about the Constitution, they really don;t support it at all, at least not when they are dissatisfied with an election.

If you had even a marginal understanding of the court system and the Constitution, you’d understand that your proposal is a prescription for chaos. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just spouting off. If you do understand the courts and the Constitution, then you are proposing to give every advantage, aid and comfort, to the enemies of this country by creating anarchy. You know what we call people who give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, don’t you Uncle S? Take a look at 18 USC 2381. Don’t think the idea that treason or sedition or conspiracies to commit treason or sedition is being committed in the country has only occurred to the anti-Obama forces in the country, Uncle S.


45 posted on 10/30/2009 6:16:12 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
I posted this a while back...

It's obvious by his legal actions and those of Speaker of the House Pelosi that 1) there is indeed something to hide, and 2) it's not going to be made public under any circumstances. Time to try a different tack.

Perhaps the focus should shift to the underlying constitutional requirement, simply stated in Article II, Section 1: A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States; must be at least 35 years of age; and must be a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

I'd suggest that there is a "choke point" for defining and verifying that any candidate, and specifically Barack Obama, must pass to ensure compliance with the "natural born" constitutional requirement. And that choke point is in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Secretary of State's office.

Under the Florida Department of State, the Division of Elections must qualify all federal candidates before they can appear on a ballot. The process is currently not much more than a rubber-stamp approval[1], but can be readily changed to become a bit more challenging to folks who might, ahem, have something to hide.

In Florida, a presidential candidate must affirm a Federal Office Loyalty Oath that states, "I am qualified under the Constitution and the Laws of Florida to hold the office to which I desire to be nominated or elected."[2]

Please note the key phrase "and the Laws of Florida". To appear on the ballot in Florida, the candidate must be qualified under any and all applicable state laws. So to clear up all this confusion about what a "natural born citizen" is, the Florida Legislature could: 1) Require that the candidate be a "natural born citizen" as stated in the Constitution; 2) Define what constitutes a "natural born citizen" under Florida law; and lastly, 3) Define what constitutes proof of such natural born citizenship. (Remember, these would be state laws, applicable only to an individual state's election processes. A presidential election is still comprised of 50 unique state elections. The Feds would (in theory) not be involved.)

And why Florida? Well, Florida currently has a special status. It went Democrat in 2008, sending Barack Obama to the White House. Winning a presidential election without Florida is virtually impossible. And Florida currently has a Republican Legislature and Governorship, the only probable conditions under which state election laws could be changed to enforce the "natural born citizen" requirements. (A few other states, including Texas, Georgia, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah have Republican control, but went Republican in 2008 election, so do not have that "must win" choke point status that Florida enjoys.)

In short, to win a second term Obama has to appear on the ballot in Florida in 2012, and Florida could determine, under their own state laws, what is required to appear on their ballot. So, how about it Florida? Here's your chance to gain the spotlight one more time, and to restore the inviolability of the Constitution of the United States of America.

My thoughts anyway. Worth every penny you paid for them!!

References:
[1] Page 2, Federal Qualifying Handbook, which has as its introduction, ironically, Article II Section 1 ("...natural born citizen...") as its introductory text.

[2] Federal Office Loyalty Oath, Form DS-DE 18A, President and Vice President Candidate Petition

46 posted on 10/30/2009 6:26:53 PM PDT by frankenMonkey ("Natural Born Citizen" - US Constitution, 1787; "Words have meaning" - Barack Obama, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"If you do understand the courts and the Constitution, then you are proposing to give every advantage, aid and comfort, to the enemies of this country by creating anarchy."

So, lets see if I get this right. Helping to ENFORCE a provision in the Constitution at a state level is "anarchy". What a crock.

This must really be a good idea for you to make such assertions.

47 posted on 10/30/2009 6:27:00 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

“This must really be a good idea for you to make such assertions.”

OK, Uncle S. Get your birther cabal together and see if you can find anyone with any real authority, someone the legislatures won’t laugh at, to run with your idea, beyond the closest U.S. Attorney’s office I mean.


48 posted on 10/30/2009 6:33:11 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"see if you can find anyone with any real authority"

Like "We The People" through a ballot initiative? Keep laughing.

49 posted on 10/30/2009 6:42:22 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, What do you think Californians would do with this idea?


50 posted on 10/30/2009 6:50:05 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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