It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unique Perspective: Obama and the Birth Certificate issue.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


So much fail. Where should I start?



Obama will NOT be thrown out of office for ineligibility

Mind-numbingly, trivially true.


BUT there's a GOOD reason the BC issue has been brought up again NOW.

Also true. The Paypal button response has been slowing down lately.


Let's get this straight once and for all. Obama will not be "thrown out" of office this term. Period.

The reason for this is because it creates a multitude of problems concerning all of the actions taken by him over the last three and a half years. Every piece of legislation he's signed would become null and void.

Wrong. That isn't how the world works. Obama is President, end of story. If it was somehow demonstrated that he wasn't eligible, he would have to be impeached and found guilty by the Senate. Biden would become President. There is a protocol called the 'de facto officer doctrine' (look it up). Nothing would become null and void; that is just silly (see Andrade v Lauer); you could no longer rely on ANYTHING at ANYTIME.


This simply will not happen. Additionally, it might not even be illegal for him to be president right now because of what I will explain next.

Pardon me while I go get the popcorn...



Eligibility issues are the purview of the individual states.

True. For State offices.

For Federal offices like Congress and the President, eligibility issues are the sole purview of the CONSTITUTION. No State can add eligibility criteria beyond that specified in the Constitution, period.


The respective parties (DNC & GOP) sign a statement attesting to the eligibility of their candidate

If that is what State law requires, yes.

By the way this only applies to the General election. Primaries are run on behalf of the party, and the state has basically no say on who goes on the ballot in any case.


but the responsibility for either allowing a candidate to be on the ballot is the sole purview of the state's Attorney General. Each states' Attorney General is charged with determining who can be on that state's ballot.

Total Fail.

Not only is it insanely broad to say 'Each' state when there are 50+ different States with 50+ different election laws, it is 100% false. AG's do not determine who can be on that State's ballot. They can sometimes determine who cannot be on the (general election) ballot. Edit: and in most cases it is the Secretary of State that is responsible for the Ballot preparation, not the Attorney General.


Ineligibility claims are brought to the state's Attorney General for determination - and their say is final. Get that? Each state determines who is eligible to be on their ballot.

Repeating it does not make it so. In most states it is the Secretary of State who is the gatekeeper, and they have much less discretion than you seem to think.


So, since Obama was allowed on all the states' ballots in 2008 and won, there may not be a legal basis for deposing him this term - except, of course if Arpaio can convince Congress that Obama has broken a law (forgery and fraud) and can get them to initiate Impeachment proceedings.. Even if he can get them to do this, the process will not conclude before this term is up.

2008 has nothing to do with it. Arpaio is a clown, his so-called 'report' is a publicity stunt for a con-artist PayPal scam.

(to be continued...)

edit on 5/3/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Yea that's probably why they let the document out so late...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Here's how it will go down... Obama will be denied ballot access in enough states by August that the DNC will have to scramble to find a candidate... knowing full well that making a run at the Presidency so late in the game will only serve to hurt future political aspirations no one with a snowball's chance will throw their name in the ring so the Dems will pretty much have to concede the White House... due to the bad publicity that the Dems will receive from not properly vetting Obama the MSM will have no choice but to be overly critical of all candidates that signed off on him such as Hoyer, Pelosi, Casey, Reid, etc... but they'll of course hit Republicans that said it was a "non-issue" the hardest...

Back to the run up to the White House... Paul will have enough delegates to win the GOP nomination but the same tricks that were pulled by the RNC in 2008 will come into play at the convention and they'll hand the nod to their posterboy Romney anyway... this will lead to Paul going independent and facing off against Romney and whichever stooge (Wasserman-Shultz perhaps) the Dems decide to throw out as a whipping boy(girl)...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


(... continued from previous post)


It's my opinion that there is a very high likelihood that the birth certificate issue has been brought up now again in an attempt to keep him off of the individual states' ballots in the first place, come November.

Your opinion is very myopic. The BC non-issue is not allowed to die its normal death because it is being exploited by con-artists as the engine behind a profitable PayPal scam, it strokes the egos of a few mentally defective sham lawyers and fraudulent 'investigators', and because there are a few 'back room' enablers with 'plausible deniablity' who find it to their advantage to maximize fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in the American electorate.



If enough states' citizens bring the issue to their state's Attorney General, as in the case of the failed Georgia suit, and are successful, then Obama could be kept off of several ballots - severely limiting his ability to compete. If enough states do this early enough, the DNC might be forced to choose another candidate.

Fail. Won't happen. Complete fantasy. Just plain silly.



Was Georgia a test case? Probably, and they've learned a lot from it. In that case, they learned that at least the plaintiffs had standing, unlike the supreme court cases thus far.

Just because citizens have the right to challenge ballot eligibility, it doesn't mean that the challenge has any merit. If they learned anything from Georgia, where they lost to an empty chair, why did they do worse in Indiana, and Arizona, and Virginia (which was actually more important for them than Georgia), and every other challenge that has come up since?



And, they probably determined that an investigation by former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience would go far in future cases. Say what you will about Arpaio, he does have credentials and his investigation has been getting publicity in the mainstream media.

Those two sentences have nothing to do with each other, what are they doing in the same paragraph. Arpaio is setting up an exit strategy. He is about to be indicted on Federal corruption charges and is in the process of negotiating an outcome that doesn't include a conviction. He wants to have a soft landing when he leaves so he's sucking up to WND.


A parting question - Anyone know when exactly Arpaio's investigation began? Wouldn't it be a coincidence if it was right after the Georgia case?

You are kidding, right?

Joe was ambushed by Tea Partiers in mid August 2011. The book deal was apparently organized shortly thereafter and he promised to deliver in mid January. Then he changed it to early February, then finally 1 March. The Georgia case hearing was the last week in January. Orly Taitz tried to subpoena the Sheriff to appear in Georgia but was blown off in no uncertain terms; even a clown like Arpaio has some standards.



Oh, and by the way... This is the reason why the Constitution of the United States is such an important document. States have more power over the course of events than the Federal Government ever could if that power is asserted. Not just in this instance but in all instances. Learn what it says!

Indeed. Learn what it says.

On this topic, the Constitution is very specific about eligibility criteria and who has the job to determine eligibility of the Candidates for Constitutionally defined offices. The sole determiner of eligibility for the President of the United States is given to CONGRESS, and CONGRESS alone. That is what the Constitution says about who can determine eligibility.

States have no jurisdiction in the matter. No Court case, even a Supreme Court case, let alone a State administrative hearing, has any say in determining eligibility. A State can require a candidate to give an oath that they are eligible for the office in order to gain access to the ballot. Once that oath is made, the burden of proof is on a challenger with standing to provide proof of ineligibility. States may not add non-Constitutional eligibility criteria; requiring a Birth Certificate, especially specifying what data must be on that Certificate, is just such a non-Constitutional criteria, and any such attempt will not be allowed to stand.

But remember this folks: being eligible and being electable are two completely different things.

edit on 5/3/2012 by rnaa because: completed a sentence that was left dangling

edit on 5/3/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   


Excellent! An ATS'er that knows how to research and post information that isn't sensational! I applaud you sir/ma'am!
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


um... you do understand that what the OP said to prompt your applause, was 100% bollocks don't you?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Everyone should remember that BHO is a tool not THE culprit. The people that put him there are the ones who we need to focus on. Putting pressure on Obahma to resign will probably not make him sing but may send a message to the puppeteers! Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Well I think the population on the whole is too dumb to realize that the whole BC issue is generated by the Obama administration on this second run.

Hillary, Ito, and Obama are all guilty of high treason for aiding and comforting the enemy in the attack on Libya.

All three had full knowledge that alqaeda fighters in Iraq who were killing our soldiers weeks before lybia were the people they were giving aid and support to.

endoftheamericandream.com...

www.foxnews.com...

And of course the infamous scrubbed telegraph link that no longer works:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Note the above link is still in google's cache. paste it into search and it comes right up.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Shadowalker because: (no reason given)



BC= Red Herring
edit on 5-3-2012 by Shadowalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa



Excellent! An ATS'er that knows how to research and post information that isn't sensational! I applaud you sir/ma'am!
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


um... you do understand that what the OP said to prompt your applause, was 100% bollocks don't you?


What was "bollocks" as you so eloquently stated it? Specifically what I was responding to? The OP gave a break down of how elections are held at the State -- even for Federal offices. But if you want to take what I said out of context, be my guess.

Edit to Add:

While States must adhere to the requirements set forth within the Constitution for Senate, Representative and President -- the requirements are narrow. States still retain their control of elections as long as they follow the foundation.

I guess you have mistaken my participation in this thread as supporting the birth certificate cause -- in which you would be sadly mistaken.
edit on 5-3-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You gave applause to this statement from the OP: (unless I misread you)



Eligibility issues are the purview of the individual states. The respective parties (DNC & GOP) sign a statement attesting to the eligibility of their candidate but the responsibility for either allowing a candidate to be on the ballot is the sole purview of the state's Attorney General. Each states' Attorney General is charged with determining who can be on that state's ballot. Ineligibility claims are brought to the state's Attorney General for determination - and their say is final. Get that? Each state determines who is eligible to be on their ballot.


That entire statement is bollocks from go to whoa.

From the OP's context he is talking about Presidential eligibility, and that is the sole purview of the Constitution and the Congress, not the States and not the Courts. I cannot think of one state in which the Attorney General organizes the ballot, but I'll give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt and just say that in most states, it is the Secretary of State. The SoS (or AG's) decision in eligibility challenges is not final, it is subject to Judicial appeal. Each State does NOT determine who is eligible for an office, only who qualifies to be on the ballot. They can, depending on their State law, disqualify individuals who will not or cannot in good faith sign a candidates statement or do not satisfy a 'demonstration of voter interest' (i.e. gather enough signatures) or other qualification hurdles, but they cannot decide eligibility for office and cannot place additional eligibility restrictions beyond those in the Constitution as qualification rules.

In the case of a primary election, it isn't even a "state election", it is a party preference referendum, and the party is entitled to have whomever it wants on the primary ballot subject to the State law that provides for the State Elections Board to manage the primary election on the political parties behalf. The State's only interest in the primary is as a practice run for the General Election.

I'm glad you are on the side of the angels in this, but it is important to understand what the State's role is and what it isn't.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join