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

Skip to comments.

How to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot
Hawaii Revised Statutes ^ | 11/04/2011 | edge919

Posted on 11/04/2011 8:03:55 AM PDT by edge919

This is the time to start a plan of action to challenge the inclusion of any Constitutionally deficient presidential candidates on your state's primary or general election ballots. It's important to research your state law and see what time frame is allowed for filing a challenge with the chief election officer. It's also important to have a clean, clearly stated and factually supported challenge.

In Obama's case, he does NOT meet the Supreme Court's definition for natural-born citizen as used to satisfy the meaning of the term in Art II Sec I of the U.S. Constitution: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. "Natural-born" according to the Supreme Court is defined outside the Constitution, excluded from the 14th amendment and means without "doubts" that must be resolved.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
The law in Hawaii, for example, that allows you to challenge the candidate's inclusion on a ballot is found here.
§11-113 Presidential ballots. (a) In presidential elections, the names of the candidates for president and vice president shall be used on the ballot in lieu of the names of the presidential electors, and the votes cast for president and vice president of each political party shall be counted for the presidential electors and alternates nominated by each political party.
(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(d) Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.

(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.

The law above requires the candidate to be eligible for office and it gives ANY party an opportunity to object to a finding of eligibility. Theoretically, one could even challenge the place of birth and therefore have a direct and tangible interest in obtaining a certified copy of the official birth certificate held by the state of Hawaii to view at this legal hearing. It shouldn't be necessary however, since Obama does NOT meet the Supreme Court definition for natural-born citizen as used in Art II Sec I.

Another state law like this one exists in Arizona.

16-351. Limitations on appeals of validity of nomination petitions; disqualification of candidate
B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.
link

It's my understanding there is a simimlar law in Illinois. There are probably similar laws in the state where you live and it needs to be challenged in each and every state that allows such challenges. It's not too late to correct the mistake made in 2008.

1 posted on 11/04/2011 8:03:58 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle for 2012!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


2 posted on 11/04/2011 8:04:43 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

It’s past time. If this hasn’t been put in place, it’s not gonna be.


3 posted on 11/04/2011 8:07:28 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Your wasting your time. This birther stuff is going nowhere and Hussein will not be kept off the ballot anywhere.


4 posted on 11/04/2011 8:08:47 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Just beat him. Soundly, decisively and beyond the “margin of fraud”. Take the senate and widen the majority in the House.

Repudiate him.


5 posted on 11/04/2011 8:10:10 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Pro’bly not. But filing a challenge doesn’t hurt anything and let’s your state know you want an answer. The more challenges filed the better if you want a result.


6 posted on 11/04/2011 8:14:01 AM PDT by RowdyFFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RowdyFFC

“He’s already president” does not solve Obama’s Constitutional deficiency. The Supreme Court, via Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, gives us a clear definition and a unanimous affirmation of how this Constitutional term is defined. There is NO authority that Trumps the Supreme Court on this definition. A chief elections officer, faced with this clear authority, would have no legitimate choice but to remove or bar Obama from the ballot. If it doesn’t happen, then you have legal standing to sue and a clear basis for the lawsuit since there would be a statutory law that was clearly not be followed. This should have been done in 2008, but most of us were too distracted by trying to figure out if the birth certificate was legitimate, when it turns out, it doesn’t matter. The children of deported foreign nationals are not natural-born citizens and are NOT Constitutionally eligible for the presidency.


7 posted on 11/04/2011 8:21:50 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Theoretically, one could even challenge the place of birth

To what purpose?

Even if he was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a natural born citizen. That should be the issue that is focused on, not his birthplace.

8 posted on 11/04/2011 8:24:50 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Figure out how to get God to smite him somehow.


9 posted on 11/04/2011 8:25:29 AM PDT by RichInOC (Sarah Palin is at war with the left. Most Freepers are just playing the video game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
To what purpose?

To be comprehensive. Place of birth is still one of the TWO components of natural-born citizenship.

10 posted on 11/04/2011 8:30:52 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

I prefer to focus on keeping him off the ballots since he is Constitutionally deficient. Let’s exercise the power of the people.


11 posted on 11/04/2011 8:32:15 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
"It’s past time. If this hasn’t been put in place, it’s not gonna be."

Ouch, I did not know that a process to end illegal voting and exclude fraudulent candidates cannot be instituted by 2012.

Oh well, I guess we can put up with illegals voting and ACORN members multi-voting for at least one more election cycle. /s

If Obama is returned to power, I'm turning my Old Glory upside down.
12 posted on 11/04/2011 8:34:20 AM PDT by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TauntedTiger

In 7 weeks it will be 2012


13 posted on 11/04/2011 8:37:08 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: edge919

How to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot:

Repatriate him.


14 posted on 11/04/2011 8:37:14 AM PDT by Iron Munro ('We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them.' -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Nobody’s keeping 0bumble off the ballot. Defeat him at the polls or watch him go willy nilly dismantling the U.S. in a second term during which he doesn’t have to think about re-election.


15 posted on 11/04/2011 8:42:21 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
In 7 weeks it will be 2012

Obamacare and virtually every anti-capitalist scheme Obama has shoved down our throats took less than 7 weeks to codify.
16 posted on 11/04/2011 8:44:23 AM PDT by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TauntedTiger

Well, draft away, get it done.


17 posted on 11/04/2011 8:46:16 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1

Why put this up to a vote when there’s no need?? This is the whole reason why such ballot laws are in place. There’s no reason to have these laws if voting citizens won’t use them.


18 posted on 11/04/2011 8:46:42 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edge919

lwet’s not be dumb here HE is beatable in november, hillary is not. if he goes out, then we’d have to contend with her. don’t lose sight of the end game here.


19 posted on 11/04/2011 9:03:16 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Good research.

It is up to the States, who are responsible for appointing Presidential electors, to act. Not the courts.


20 posted on 11/04/2011 9:16:28 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: edge919

But either of the two is enough to disqualify. I think it to be more prudent to focus on the one with the highest probability of success. The Birther issue has been lost.


21 posted on 11/04/2011 9:17:27 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: edge919; 1234; bushpilot1; Danae; DiogenesLamp; GregNH; Hotlanta Mike; Jacquerie; Kaslin; ...
Great find! Thanks!

I would also say that ANY voter, anywhere in the country should be able challenge his eligibility (in Hawaii for example, plus other states). Case in point, the language in the Hawaiian procedure says "any party [or] individual".

(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.
It does not say Hawaiian individual. And rightly so... Even though I am not in Hawaii, Obama's being determined eligible has a direct effect on MY candidate winning or losing the overall election.

So just at Hawaii alone, there should be MILLIONS of eligibility challenges! Ditto for other states with similar rules!

Also, since no one will know if the election committee will accept an argument that the 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett is the official definition of a "natural born citizen" (ie, born on US soil to TWO citizen parents), then it is also necessary (and you would have a direct tangible interest) to obtain for this legal proceeding a copy of his original birth certificate from the month of his birth. A 'copy' from the white house is not evidence in any legal proceeding. Plus even WITH acceptance of Minor vs Happersett, the original LFBC is needed to prove who were his parents on the day of his birth.

22 posted on 11/04/2011 9:21:14 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

If you recognize that there is such a thing as an “anchor baby,” a child born in the United States to illegal aliens, then you recognize that just being born here is enough to make you natural born.


23 posted on 11/04/2011 9:22:42 AM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]




Change red to yellow!
Donate Monthly


Abolish FReepathons
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

24 posted on 11/04/2011 9:26:46 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.; Future Useless Eater
The Birther issue has been lost.

The "birther" issue has not been tried. To the extent it has even been introduced, the response from the WH was to issue a patently defective document. That was in a real sense another wagging of a finger.

I think it to be more prudent to focus on the one with the highest probability of success.

The removal ssue will only be resolved via impeachment and conviction. During the 2009 Joint Session of Congress each and every member of Congress had full knowledge that he was reported to have a foreign father and they gave him a pass. Do you expect them to now reverse themselves with the excuse the issue was not legally settled in 2009, when it in fact it was? Would that not be similar to arguing "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"?

Do you not agree that if a non-domestic birth is established, it is immediately game over?

25 posted on 11/04/2011 9:54:47 AM PDT by frog in a pot (The IRS denies tax deductions to our domestic terrorists. Why the hell do we not just deport them ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

“(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding,”

Um...the qualifying phrase for “individual” in this sentence is “with a candidate on the presidential ballot,” so only an individual “on the presidential ballot” (presumably in HI) would have standing to contest the eligibility of another candidate on that ballet, IMO.

Any HI FReepers in HI inclined to run for POTUS in HI?


26 posted on 11/04/2011 10:03:03 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
The removal issue will only be resolved via impeachment

We are not talking about impeachment here. We are discussing the possibility of challenges to placing his name on ballots for 2012. I do not think this was done in 2008, as it should have been.

27 posted on 11/04/2011 10:43:54 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
The "birther" issue has not been tried.

Court after court has thrown this issue out based on lack of "standing". but my reference to "lost" was actually in reference to the court of public opinion.

Birthers are now considered by almost all to be whack jobs along the lines of 911 truthers. Having the birth issue as a focus will be a distraction that the press will be all over.

28 posted on 11/04/2011 10:47:17 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
We are not talking about impeachment here.

Only if you change the issue. Here is what you said in #8 above.

Even if he was born in Hawaii, he is NOT a natural born citizen. That should be the issue that is focused on, not his birthplace.

What is the use of focusing on "his birthplace" unless it is for the purpose of impeachment?

Have a nice day.

29 posted on 11/04/2011 11:20:44 AM PDT by frog in a pot (The IRS denies tax deductions to our domestic terrorists. Why the hell do we not just deport them ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; Future Useless Eater

If I recall correctly from 4 years ago, New Jersey may have effective language for contesting a candidate at the primary level (although it provides for a very narrow time frame).


30 posted on 11/04/2011 11:25:13 AM PDT by frog in a pot (The IRS denies tax deductions to our domestic terrorists. Why the hell do we not just deport them ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
What is the use of focusing on "his birthplace" unless it is for the purpose of impeachment?

To prevent him from being reelected, which is what this thread is about, you would know if you had read the first sentence in the original post. All of my references have been to that subject, you brought impeachment into play.

31 posted on 11/04/2011 11:52:04 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
If you recognize that there is such a thing as an “anchor baby,” a child born in the United States to illegal aliens, then you recognize that just being born here is enough to make you natural born.

A) The SCOTUS definition of NBC is self-limiting. "These are the natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." IOW, if you are not born in the country to citizen parents, you are considered a natural alien whose claim to U.S. citizenship is in doubt and must be resolved by either constitutional or statutory means.

B) In U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court ruled that to be satisfy the subject clause, the parents must have permanent residence and domicil.

If there's such a thing as an "anchor baby," it is the result of a misapplication of statutory law and has nothing to do with natural-born citizenship.

32 posted on 11/04/2011 12:04:36 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Court after court has thrown this issue out based on lack of "standing". but my reference to "lost" was actually in reference to the court of public opinion.

By law, the chief elections officer in Hawaii must grant a hearing so you can present your objection to the finding of eligibility. If you are denied a hearing, then you have particularized injury and thus legal standing to sue the state. If your objection is denied, then you can sue because the state's finding of eligibility is legally flawed and again, you'd have legal standing to sue the state and make them uphold the law. The Supreme Court's criteria for NBC was given directly to define the term as it pertains to presidential eligibility in the Constitution. There is no higher authority and the state is compelled to follow this definition. They would have no stronger legal basis for NOT following the Supreme Court's definition. Public opinion is irrelevant because we have a Supreme Court precedent.

33 posted on 11/04/2011 12:10:31 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I'm not sure if you necessarily have to have a candidate on the ballot in order to object to a finding of eligibility. It makes sense you would need to have such a candidate to object to that candidate being disqualified, but no candidate is going to object to a finding of their own eligibility. Even so, one could become a bona fide member of your state's political party organization in order to claim that you have a candidate on the presidential ballot in order to file an objection against Obama's inclusion on the ballot.

The trickiest part of this is the short window for being able to challenge the finding of eligibility to put a candidate's name on the ballot. IIUC, the law in Hawaii was basically from the 60th day to the 45th day prior to election day (or something like that).

34 posted on 11/04/2011 12:30:49 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: edge919

My view is that:

1) Who could be easier to defeat in the election than Baraq?

2) Any states that would procedurally take Baraq off the ballot are ones that he’s guaranteed to lose anyway BUT giving the Dems the perfect excuse for his defeat. There’s no way any true blue state is going to take him off the ballot.


35 posted on 11/04/2011 12:37:10 PM PDT by nascarnation (DEFEAT BARAQ 2012 DEPORT BARAQ 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
If you recognize that there is such a thing as an “anchor baby,” a child born in the United States to illegal aliens, then you recognize that just being born here is enough to make you natural born.

"Birth" is a natural process. The founders weren't using the term "natural born" in such a simplistic meaning.

36 posted on 11/04/2011 12:46:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
We are not talking about impeachment here. We are discussing the possibility of challenges to placing his name on ballots for 2012. I do not think this was done in 2008, as it should have been.

I cannot speak for others on this, but as for myself, I fully expected John McCain and the larger Republican party establishment to do this. At the time I did not realize that John McCain had a political vulnerability on this issue, and he would therefore not raise it because it was likely to do more damage to HIM than it would to Barry.

37 posted on 11/04/2011 12:50:22 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

1) At 45 days prior to the election, the Democrats wouldn’t have time to put up anybody as strong as Obama.

2) We have SCOTUS precedent with the definition of NBC. There’s no higher legal authority that can be cited for keeping Obama on the ballot. Any Republican beats write-in candidate in a heartbeat.


38 posted on 11/04/2011 12:53:33 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

You are correct, I introduced impeachment because it is relevant to our exchange on this thread.

Notwithstanding state election laws that do not clearly set out the two elements of NBC, imagine the difficulty and time required to start from the begining and litigate the foreign father feature of a candidate.

When and if it does reach the USSC, is there not clear precedent established by the irresponsible action of the 2009 Congress? Wrap that action with a loose definition of the 14thA; what is the likelihood of the court holding every member of the 2009 Congress was mistaken?

My argument is that it seems very likely an impeachement will be required to reverse the effect of the 2009 Congress.


39 posted on 11/04/2011 1:36:57 PM PDT by frog in a pot (The IRS denies tax deductions to our domestic terrorists. Why the hell do we not just deport them ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
...I fully expected John McCain and the larger Republican party establishment to do this.

You were not alone. Sadly, McCain, who was armed with Senate Resolution 511 which clearly underscored the two citizen parent requirement, did not make a peep.

It was also disappointing that not a single office of the Republican party, state or national, lifted a finger at the primary level. This despite election laws in virtually every juridiction that would have supported a challenge.

I have long argued the only rational excuse for the failure of the Republicans to procedurally challenge O’s qualifications at the 2009 Joint Session was that they had quality intel that Clinton presented a greater threat to our national security.

If so, given the cost in terms of the Constitution and based on what we know today, that must have been a hell of a threat.

I fear, however, that they allowed a constitutionally unqualified individual to squeak by simply for political gain. They ought to take an oath that protects us against that sort of fraud. /sarc

40 posted on 11/04/2011 1:50:16 PM PDT by frog in a pot (The IRS denies tax deductions to our domestic terrorists. Why the hell do we not just deport them ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: camle; edge919
"lwet’s not be dumb here HE is beatable in november, hillary is not. if he goes out, then we’d have to contend with her. don’t lose sight of the end game here."

The end game for you, it appears, is limited to a political win during one election cycle in particular.

Whereas the "end game" for folks like myself (& I believe edge919 and others) is to not only get a political win but to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution at all times.

Someone born with foreign citizenship, and thus foreign allegiance owed is not Constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military.

A multi-national at birth must not be allowed to openly set the precedent. Would be just another brick removed from our sovereignty foundation.

41 posted on 11/04/2011 2:04:49 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Excellent post. The point here is to uphold the Constitution and not allow it to be relegated to being nothing more than a suggestion. People fought and died to uphold the ideals represented within and when changes were necessary, it was amended under due process. We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to deal with the fraud and deceit of 2008 and never, ever let it happen again.


42 posted on 11/04/2011 3:22:53 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The law is that if you are born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen.


43 posted on 11/04/2011 7:21:20 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The law is that if you are born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen.


44 posted on 11/04/2011 7:22:06 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

There’s no such law.


45 posted on 11/04/2011 7:37:32 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

You’re only a natural-born citizen if you are born in the United States to citizen parents. If you must rely on statutory law to determine your citizenship instead of natural law, you are NOT natural born.


46 posted on 11/04/2011 7:40:21 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor
The law is that if you are born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen.

No law declares such. You are confusing the 14th amendment term "citizen" with Article II term "natural born citizen." Unfortunately, so do most people.

47 posted on 11/04/2011 7:57:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: edge919
You may already be aware of this, but if not, I think you might find it interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts?page=428#428

48 posted on 11/04/2011 8:01:01 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: edge919
It's important to research your state law and see what time frame is allowed for filing a challenge with the chief election officer.

Here is a good starting place:

Ballot Challenge

49 posted on 11/04/2011 8:08:54 PM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“…The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first…”

Pretty much says it.


50 posted on 11/04/2011 8:11:56 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (OWH! (The 53%rs))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 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