Replies

For this reason, Daniels has filed suit. “Defendant Husted, through this filing,” she argues, “has been made aware that the Democratic Candidate has been using a fraudulent Social Security Number, which would render Barack Obama ineligible under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions.”

You are right, she does say this.

But it's a claim or contention, not a fact.

How exactly does a fraudulent SS#, in and of itself, render a candidate under the US Constitution? Which clause spells this out?

I think it far more likely the plaintiff believes it should make a candidate ineligible, and I might even agree with her. But I really doubt the US Constitution has anything at all to say about SS#s with regard to eligibility. In fact, the Constitution has nothing at all to say about whether convicted felons are eligible to be elected president.

According to a former IRS agent:

"Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the fictitious name “Obama” for some reason. (again Barry Soetoro’s own admission) One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York, the main route for Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open warrants on file in New York… maybe Barry is one of them?....

After spending some time in New York allegedly working under the name “Obama”, It appears Barry used the fictitious name "Barrack Hussein Obama" for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and /or to establish a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)

When the IRS received Barry Soetoro’s federal tax filing, the IRS could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name "Barrack Hussein Obama" a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name). Barry Soetoro began using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms. Most of the politicians that cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.

It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new identity to get a job. He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new identity as "Obama". Fake Diploma's were very big in the 80's and diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry never attended Columbia) and Barry lied his way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in)"

But I really doubt the US Constitution has anything at all to say about SS#s with regard to eligibility.

It doesn't, and not just because Socialist Security wasn't around when the Constitution was written. It doesn't say anything about whether a person has to have a clean police record to be eligible to serve as president.

In this case, since he's already serving, the correct remedy is impeachment, conviction, and removal from office.

“In fact, the Constitution has nothing at all to say about whether convicted felons are eligible to be elected president.”

Yes, but subsequent (constituional) laws have made felons ineligible for Federal Office. Until Ollie North’s conviction was tossed, he couldn’t run for U.S. Senate. IF the POTUS has committed fraud, he could be impeached. I think fraud falls under the category of “high crimes and misdemeaners.”

I realize that this thread have may have already played itself out for the most part (what can I say? I was gone all day playing golf instead of working), but since no one else seems to have weighed in on what I consider a gaping hole in your argument, here goes:

"I think it far more likely the plaintiff believes it should make a candidate ineligible, and I might even agree with her.

Why, because he would be a probable felon? Not until convicted, but that overlooks an even more salient point:

"But I really doubt the US Constitution has anything at all to say about SS#s with regard to eligibility."

This is where you're fantabulously, utterly, discombobulatedly

If if can be legally established/challenged that Dude is using a fraudulent identity, then it means that we don't know who this guy really is. And if it is determined legally that we don't know who this guy really is, then that would set wheels in motion to get to the bottom of just who exactly this guy really is.

THAT's why the SS# issue is important. Perhaps it will turn out that the guy is a Natural Born Citizen somehow but a fraud and felon. Perhaps it will be discovered that he was actually born abroad to a mother too young to confer any kind of US citizenship at all and we have our first Illegal Alien pResident. Aren't illegal aliens known for being prone to identity theft? I seem to recall the "Obama" clan having issues with that sort of thing. . .

One way or another though, if the guy is found to be an identity thief, then the real truth about his birth and life narrative will come out.

M' Kay?

Thanks to Smokeyblue for the post, and to BD for the Ping.