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?
Get a grip. Obama is going to be defeated at the ballot box, not through any birther move.
No matter what we say or think, he’s president until the supremes say otherwise or he loses next month.
Grab a beer, some chips and watch bad TV and for heaven sakes stop thinking.
This is a big face plant.
Not very soothing, Dave. But I’m not presenting this as a “birther move”. I’m suggesting that a blow could be dealt to the Obama campaign at a very critical juncture. Besides which, as much as I pray to see him defeated at the ballot box, I see no reason not to bring every challenge, every obstacle and do anything else possible to make sure he is defeated.
Ouch. Except the beer part. That sounds good.
I’m not a birther in the sense that I believe Obama was not born in the States, but I think the Natural Born Citizen question is valid and begs for an answer. Besides which, I’d like to see as much flak thrown up against his campaign as possible.
I agree with that, JR.
We need to educate people on this subject.
Isn’t this an opportunity to do some edumacating?
Well....except that zero claimed to have been born in Kenya when writing his personal info for his literary agent. This claim only started disappearing when he began running for POTUS. Clearly he was lying somewhere...
It's a non starter.
Ok, have a beer and enjoy the evening.
Just fixed my husband a cheese tray and a glass of wine...so off the join him, nice evening so we will be enjoying the still summer weather (even though its fall - yea for global warming ;-).
You’re right. I’m sure the League of Women Voters will step in 30 days before the election to declare Obama ineligible. And then he will resign in disgrace and everyone will come to know the truth.
Can I have some of what you’re smoking?
Don’t distract the voters with nonsense. Even if you’re right, the issue has been heard and rejected by the public. You make yourself look foolish.
Convince people to vote for Romney. Forget about this stuff. It’s never going to happen.
It would have the result of the Uneducated "experts" proving to the public that people who have actually researched this and who know what they are talking about are "wrong."
Sometimes you just have to run from a mob instead of trying to reason with them.
What qualification were you wondering about?
Thank you for taking the time and effort to thoughtfully read and research this interesting point of law.
Larry Klayman has sent a copy of his letter to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer to every member of the Commission on Presidential Debates via certified mail. They have all been informed by an attorney that HI state registrar Alvin Onaka has confirmed that the White House BC image is a forgery and that the real HI record is legally non-valid. A bunch of these people are lawyers so they know the legal reasoning is sound and Obama cannot be known to be eligible. The CPD rules actually require that there be EVIDENCE of eligibility, meaning that the burden of proof is on Obama.
But the fact of the matter is that this is a private entity and they don’t have to follow their own rules, just like the DNC is a private entity and doesn’t have to follow their own rules.
The difference is that when Bob Bauer submits to a state Secretary of State for a legal purpose (placement on a ballot) a Certification of Nomination that he knows is perjurious and fraudulent, that ventures into LEGAL territory, and that is subornation of perjury and also election fraud.
If we have any rule of law left in this country, Bob Bauer will be facing 50 counts of subornation of perjury and 50 counts of fraud.
The legal department of NE SOS John Gale told me in a phone call that even if Bob Bauer, Alice Travis Germond, and Antonio Villaigarosa were sitting in jail convicted of perjury and fraud for that Certification, Obama’s name would still be on the ballot because NE statute doesn’t specifically state that the filing papers have to be LAWFUL.
What that means is that criminal counts against Bob Bauer cannot in any way, shape, or form be considered “political”, since it has no impact on a political candidate. This was a civilian attorney who presented for a legal purpose a document he knew to be perjurious and fraudulent. He needs to be brought to justice. If he is not, we have just handed over the country to whatever thug has the audacity to do whatever he darn well pleases.
The election will play out as it will; we’re beyond the ability to do anything about that. Let’s get Obama defeated.
But in the meantime we need to send a message to the criminals - and I mean that in EVERY sense of the word - who have allowed him to be on the ballots by forgery, perjury, threats and harassment, murder, and deception: “The rule of law matters, and we will NOT sit idly by while the whole system screws us. The colonists compiled a list of grievances and we are compiling our own lists. Don’t tread on us, or you will regret the loss of the rule of law. Once the little people have nothing left to lose, all bets are off. Think seriously about that and choose your words and actions very, very carefully.”
forget trying to push any point of what a NBC is ... just push the requirement to submit documentation
they CANNOT say any of the candidates are NBC unless they’ve been presented the documentation
have him submit it ... at which point he will have committed forgery and fraud
of course, I’d prefer he submit it to some division of elections somewhere... then he’d have committed felony forgery
Needs repeating, and loudly.
Not even the SCOTUS could take away his presidency, that’s the function of Impeachment.
I am glad to see others with the opinion that the notion of Obama *not* legally being president is a non-starter.
As to the OP, Obama won the electoral college, was affirmed by congress and sworn in by the CJOTSCOTUS — which rendered any notion of him not being eligible moot. The only thing left was for a state by state fight on eligibility for being on the ballot.
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.
You’re still not getting it. The court has the power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. Eligibility certainly falls with the scope of such a controversy. This isn’t the same as impeachment. The stuff about Congress certifying the electoral vote does NOT resolve whether or not Obama meets Article II eligibility. Second, Congress is not given a specified power to be the so-called “arbiters of eligibility.” It would be a conflict of interest because a partisan Congress can simply ignore the issue (which is what has happened anyway). It still does NOT take away the court’s Constitutional power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. A de facto officer can be removed for being ineligible. It’s not an impeachment but more of an annulment.
I get it, you don’t.
This isn’t under the Constitution, this is the Constitution
Article 2 section 4. Besides, there is always that pesky Marbury V. Madison.
The court has no power to remove the President. The court can find anything it wants about the president, whether he’s a serial pediophile or ineligible, but only congress can remove him.
De facto vs De Jure, I told you to look it up.
Yes, politics is partisan and they certainly can and have had problems Yes, the House elected a President twice. Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and in 1825 it elected John Quincy Adams
Conflict of interest because they can ignore the issue? — A laughable assertion since it is Congress’s prerogative to act. This is done via Vote and articles of impeachment.
What are your plans? Sue Congress because they won’t impeach the President? Make the SCOTUS issue a writ of Mandamus to compel Congress to impeach the President? Because that is in a nutshell what your argument is, it’s so preposterous that it’s been laughed out of court, laughed at in public and has aided the opposition in belittling the eligibility argument to the point that NO CREDIBLE action will ever take place.
There are 50 Secretary’s of States that have determined Obama’s eligibility — Who are you to say otherwise.
Read Marbury V. Madison and find out for yourself what the court thinks of your type of arguments.
This is a lot of consternation without actually making a point. If you think there’s something relevant in Marbury v. Madison, then give the citaiton. I’m not going on a goose chase to try to make an argument. And I know the difference between de facto and de jure. Obama fits the former, not the latter. The court has ruled that such persons are not protected.
Marbury v. Madison
Excerpt from the pedia entry
“The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution”
That’s what Marbury v. Madison is about.
That was in response to your assertion that the Constitution gives the SCOTUS this mythical power to remove a President.
And no, you don’t know what de facto and de jure are or your denying them in order to deny that Congress by certifying the election and 50 States Secretary of States allowing Obama on the ballot amounts to a de facto approval of eligibility.
There. Fixed it for you.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
"Judicial review" is about deciding the Constitutionality of laws. We're not talking about the Constitutionality of a law. And, we're not talking about an impeachment because that would require a "de jure" president, not a "de facto" president. Here are definitions of "de jure" and "de facto" to help you comprehend this issue accurately:
An officer de jure is a person who is legally appointed to exercise the functions of an office. A person will be appointed as an officer de jure if s/he fulfills the required qualifications to hold the office.
Do you see the underlined part about "required qualifications"??? Obama does NOT have those required qualifications because he is not a natural-born citizen.
"an officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised ...
All that "de facto" means is that a person held an office, but was not necessarily qualified to hold that office. His or her acts would be upheld as lawful acts, but that person is not immune from being removed from office nor is that person entitled to be treated as a lawful occupant of that office. Just because the states gave "de facto approval" does NOT make Obama Constitionally eligible for office under Article II of the Constitution. If Obama was a "de jure" president, he would have to be impeached. Because he is only a "de facto" president, his illegitimate occupation of the office could be annulled by a court.
Not only does your argument subordinate the POTUS to the SCOTUS — which the Constitution takes great pains to avoid, it also usurps the power and duty assigned to Congress.
And your a little light on your analysis of Marbury v. Madison. You did original claim that it was “Judicial Review” that gave the power to remove the President.
Why don’t you draw me a road map where SCOTUS removes POTUS without impeachment.
Make it plain and simple, step by step with cites to the Constitution.
You can’t because they all end with Article 2 section 4.
And no, you still don’t get de facto and de jure. Your main impediment is that you keep on confusing law with the Constitution. They are not the same.
And I’m done beating this dead horse with you. Reality is on my side.
There is no ‘grand conspiracy’, there just isn’t a mechanism in place that does what you want to believe is doable.
Take credit for your own thought nothin wrong with mine
Take credit for your own thought nothin wrong with mine