Skip to comments.Is Obama Eligible to Participate in the Presidential Debates? (Vanity
Posted on 10/06/2012 6:36:41 PM PDT by JewishRighter
There has been plenty of discussion of the presidential debates: moderators, topics, format and so on. While I was lurking on one such thread here on FR tonight, it occurred to me to look for information about how they are setting up the upcoming town hall debate on October 16 by going to the website of the Commission on Presidential Debates. While there, I came across a section regarding eligibility to participate in the debates and lo and behold, they require the participants to be Natural Born Citizens and the rest of the constitutional qualifications to run for President. See here:
Now, here's the money question: Is it possible to launch a challenge to Obama's participation in the debates? Would doing so have any better chance of success because of the different forum and procedural circumstances? IOW, this would not be a ballot challenge subject to the same standing issues and statutory roadblocks that differed from state to state? Would it be worthwhile as a means of putting added pressure on 0's debate prep? Does anyone have a suggestion about sending this to one of the organizations or people who have made previous challenges?
Since Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for office, he wouldn’t have to be impeached. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanor. Ineligible is simply that ... ineligible, so yes, the court with the power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution could remove an ineligible occupant.
Like butterdezillion said, the debates are run by a private entity and they would rather ignore their own rules than declare PRESIDENT Obama I eligible.
What I find so frustrating is that in 25 years, the hottest e-book on the beach will be President Ineligible, the tell all political tome that lets the American people know that not only was Barack Obama a stealth candidate, paid for by enemies of the country , gay, and Muslim, but he also was never formally a US citizen and not eligible for the Presidency. And everyone will be stunned and shocked.
BTW, to ignore the fact of Obama’s Kenyan birth, (see British Kenya Colonial Records), is to repeat the same error that McCain made in 2008.
That gave Obama the election victory in 2008. Romney is on track to do the same for the same reason. DUH!
He won the electoral college, he was *CERTIFIED* by congress and sworn in by the CJOTSCOTUS.
*CERTIFIED* would include, the vote tallies where correct, The House and The Senate concurred and approved and deemed him eligible. People forget that Congress has the final say in seating the President Elect and they can and have refused.
Because it would reflect poorly on the Romney campaign and probably lose the election for him.
It would detract from the salient arguments — That Obama Sucked as a President.
Would be very bad timing and probably work to Zero’s advantage by making it look like Romney was getting desperate when it’s actually the other way around.
Had the PhonyCons and RINOs followed the Constitution and legal precedent...we would not have an Obama 2d term....as he would not have run for 2d term
Instead, Obama-Supporter RINOs attacked Obama Eligibility people (”Birthers”) instead of going after Obama.
And, after Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his posse confirmed the 2011 released Obama Birth Certificate is a “fraud”....if you are not a Birther by now...you are pretty much an Obama Supporter.
BTW, to ignore the fact of Obamas Kenyan birth, (see British Kenya Colonial Records), is to repeat the same error that McCain made in 2008.
That gave Obama the election victory in 2008. Romney is on track to do the same for the same reason. DUH!
Yes, absolutely correct
Scary how many people on here are willing to give Obama a pass on the Eligibility issue. What other things are they willing to give Obama a pass on?
You’re correct. Which is why I should have mentioned that this should NOT come from the Romney campaign or from anyone who could be identified as a surrogate.
That’s an excellent point, but see my previous post. This should not come from the Romney campaign for the reason you stated.
About the salient argument argument, I agree. That should be the Romney line. I would even encourage his campaign to disavow the effort to attack Obama’s standing to participate in the debates.
The issue of the definition of natural born citizen needs a supreme court decision. It’s part of the constitution and needs to be addressed for this president, given the citizenship of his father.
The issue was not addressed during the last nomination and election process. How long does it need to be an open question before the USSC will meet its responsibilities?
The question of location of his birth has not been proven with any degree of openness. Given that he posted what some experts say is a forged document, it it still unanswered. The president needs to authorize the state of Hawaii to open the record for public scrutiny.
You may be okay with leaving these questions unanswered. Those of us who seek the truth and definitive meanings to the constitution are not. The truth is more important that accepting the last election as some type of definitive answer. That was done in 1960 and we should never settle for that.
The other files should be opened also, but I don’t see that as a constitutional issue. However, if it sheds some light on citizenship then they are also critical.
If you don’t need more information that so be it, but step aside while those of us who call for it continue to pursue the truth to our satisfaction. As long as information and decisions are not provided, these questions will be open and the country is worse off for it.
Factually correct, contextually wrong. Obama has been certified a natural born citizen by the very act of certifying and seating him as president.
"The issue was not addressed during the last nomination and election process. How long does it need to be an open question before the USSC [SIC] will meet its responsibilities?"
Wrong. Every State Attorney General accepted and agreed that Obama was eligible by their acceptance of his nomination and placement on the Ballot. This issue did not occur in a vacuum as these accusations were started well before Obama's election.
"The question of location of his birth has not been proven with any degree of openness".
Meaningless because of the use of opinion. I can't find a legal definition of 'degree of openness' other than it's Utilitarianism, and -ism subject to it's own argument
"You may be okay with leaving these questions unanswered".
I am not okay with it. I just realize that there is only one constitutional way to remove Obama from the Presidency and that is impeachment. Article 2 section 4 USCON.
I did support efforts to deem him ineligible for the next election, but all those avenues have failed before the courts, multiple times, multiple ways and in every state his eligibility has been challenged.
I believe that this effort has been a failure precisely because the issue has been relegated to the fringe category by those that could have done something but must keep their distance from those trying to 'brute force' the issue with unrealistic expectations and fabrications.
"The truth is more important that accepting the last election as some type of definitive answer. That was done in 1960 and we should never settle for that".
Otherwise known as *pissing* in the sand box. There is a difference between not liking and rational disbelief and 'not liking' has been the loudest voice of this movement and tainted those of us with rational disbelief.
"The other files should be opened also, but I dont see that as a constitutional issue. However, if it sheds some light on citizenship then they are also critical".
Agreed the judgement on Obama's business and political and decision making acumen is the purvey of the court of public opinion. Those are private documents and and the candidate can choose to release or withhold as they deem fit.
Theses actions and vetting could not have occurred properly because the documents necessary to make informed decisions were not available. Just because Nancy Pelosi signs a form does not make Obama eligible for office. Attorneys Generals do not do that, it falls to the secretaries of State. Example the Cal SoS denied Eldridge Cleaver ballot access when his birth certificate showed he was too young. However, the current one did not demand that Obama submit his even in the face of allegations he was not a citizen.
You can tell me all you want about the election process, but I don’t know how you can conclude it was thorough.
I can list other counters to your points, but am not going to parse allof your statements.
The fact that there is serious disagreement indicates a need for the actions that I described to be taken.
There ave been numerous threads here just since I came on board. It is easy to argue both sides.
What is needed is some transparency, court action, and for people to demand it.
As for the rest, I've made my argument, you've made yours. That's the American way.
This doesn't mean he was ever Constitutionally eligible. You're trying to rely on circular logic, when it simply means nothing.
*CERTIFIED* would include, the vote tallies where correct, The House and The Senate concurred and approved and deemed him eligible.
They did NOTHING to "deem" Obama to be Constitutionally eligible. Certifying a count of electoral votes is irrelevant to whether or not Obama meets Article II requirements. Again, the courts have the Constitutional power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. This means the courts have the power to declare any candidate/occupant to be ineligible for office.
Anyone can pResident according to you. Did Congress or the Supremes commit a criminal act?
The court cannot remove the President. <-— That’s a big fat period. Article 2 section 4 USCON.
Congress certified Obama’s eligibility de facto by certifying the election. each State’s Secretary of state certified Obama eligible de facto by putting him on the ballot. They are the arbiters of eligibility, not the Judicial Branch and certainly not either you or I.
I don’t believe it has been extensively ‘heard’ by the public because of media shutoff. However. I will say with some agreement that it has been ‘heard’ by many people looking to have Obama out of office and it would be my guess that the ‘birther’ issue has become or should be a serious matter because it is a Constitutional issue that involves more than the present election; especially with the Nation being inundated with persons who do not know or care if our Constitution is relevant.