Posted on 12/02/2008 7:30:36 PM PST by ckilmer
PJT: "Lack of precedent only means it hasn't been done before. Not having been done before is not a reason to not pursue it now."
I agree wholeheartedly. The 20th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 3, deals in part with the president-elect who has "failed to qualify." It does not matter at all that there is no precedent, when the CONSTITUTION prescribes the remedy.
We should always defer to the Constitution rather than our fears of what may or may not happen.
and don’t forget your Limited Edition Collector Coins from the Franklin Mint that are being advertised.
I think that’s exactly what they are. Change.gov is collecting an internet army to assist Axelrods guys already working. It isn’t going to stop. It will be a constant campaign.
Best laugh of the day :)
It was 1929 if I recall. Jonathan RCA and George Phillip were running the cameras. Ratings were tough.
Weird that BHO also denied his kids seeing their only living great grandmother when BHO flew to Hawaii in the middle of his campaign.
Plus they all missed the funeral.
Great catch,,,
IIRC the Gettysburg Address was written on the train on the
way to Gettysburg,,,ain’t sure...
Please pass the Troll Spray
LMAO!,,,You got it,,,
Welcome to FR...;0)
PROVING that the SCOTUS has to get involved here.
Almost all the Secretaries of States have NO RESPONSIBILITY to vet the candidates. This is left to the PARTIES.
That is unacceptable.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat what I said [ here ] :
Re "The Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention"
So the concensus is appearing that:
(1) Absent some specific statutory duty (as, arguably, exists in NJ and is a stated ground in the Donofrio case), the Secretaries of State have no duty to verify that the candidates are eligible to serve; and,
(2) The only entity that even gives lipservice to verifying a candidate's, or President-elect's, eligibility is THAT CANDIDATE'S POLITICAL PARTY.
This is simply constitutionally gross.
There is no way in God's Green Earth that the framers or anyone else who loves this country or our Constitution would find it acceptable for an individual to be seated as President of the United States based, possibly, on a series of rubberstamp "verifications" made by political hacks who:
(1) Not only were *not experts in the issues raised by various fact patterns or in the law and its application to those facts,*
(2) But who had *every motivation and personal interest, good and bad, known to man* at stake in their decision on whether a particular candidate was eligible to serve as president; and,
(3) Then there be NO WAY TO CHALLENGE the party's compliance or process? Balderdash.
This would be like saying a racehorse can't be awarded the crown in the Kentucky Derby if it was given performance drugs.
But the only entity that (supposedly) determines if the racehorse was given performance drugs, and thus is not eligible to be declared the winner of the Derby, is the racehorse owners.
And the owners don't even have a defined procedure they must follow to make that determination, nor do they have any expertise in determining whether the racehorse was given performance drugs.
Moreover, the racehorse owners have every motivation and personal interest known to man at stake in their horse winning the race, regardless if he's had performance drugs or not.
Yet they sign off that the racehorse is eligible to compete and win and that's not challengeable? By anyone?
Is this any way to run a Constitution?
He is a phony and doesn’t do family. No parents, no grandparents. Missing the funeral is odd to me.
Sadly I do not think anyone who thinks their rights under the Constitution have been infringed will have their case allowed before SCOTUS.
My wife has what she and an attorney think she has a discrimination case against her HOA. The attorney said she can spend the money and try it her self and be tied up in legal roadblocks forever.
She can use an attorney and he will take it as far as her money will last.
So it does not matter that she has a case because not in her lifetime or limit of her funds will she see a date before SCOTUS.
She will die tired, broke, and aggrieved and never talk to even a clerk at SCOTUS.
Maybe that is why Obama's mouthpiece over at Snopes recently made this odd change to their entry dealing with Obama's Natural Born status:
"Although his mother was herself a natural-born U.S. citizen, his father was a Kenyan national, and his parents may or may not have been legally married in the eyes of
Hmmmm.
Yes. And, under the law at the time, could it be the mother or did the citizenship by descent have to come from the father?
I'm telling you... I think there are Obot sleeper trolls all over this forum.
Except that some Hawaii state officials have been, at least allegedly, quoted as saying all is right with Obama’s long form.
This has added to the general perception that there is no “there” there.
I don’t know what all the talk about Ann’s comings and goings is based on. That’s why I am still a skeptic. But if there is evidence that she was in Kenya and when, that would be interesting.
Now, there's a lead that's truly worth chasing down. Any chance you can ask your source for their source?
The birth announcement, iIRC, said Ann and Barack were Mr. and Mrs. That’s the socially correct story to which I was referring.
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.