WND: Apparently the Governor Can't Find the Birth Certificate

Damn Yankee said:
1. Again, here is the statute:



As originally posted here, where you were a party to the conversation:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=753065&postcount=130
Click to expand...


Like I said, the fact that persons born out of state can obtain birth certificates issued by Hawaii does not mean that a person born out of state can obtain a birth certificate that says that they were born in Honolulu.


Damn Yankee said:
2. I'll take that as to you not being man enough to admit I am right and you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I just don't care.
 
Rana said:
Birther, you have finally shown your true colors, thank you.
Click to expand...
Actually I was just giving what is true. If he doesn't show the documents, some states will not be able to put his name on the ballot. They passed laws on it.

If you think that makes me a birther than you are odd. I am simply reporting the truth.

While I am curious as to what exactly he is hiding on his Birth Certificate I truly believe that there is one that we will eventually see.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, they do.


So it is up to the state legislatures to choose the Electoral delegates. And it is up to those delegates to cast votes for the president.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there.

Good Luck said:
Federal authority is limited to first, determining when the votes are to be cast so all states do so on the same date; second, confirming the results of the electoral vote, and third, selecting the winner in the case that a majority of electoral votes is not reached by any candidate.

Nowhere is the authority to determine eligibility mentioned. The only thing mentioned is that there ARE minimal requirements to be selected as president. Since the electoral college is who cast votes, then HOW THE HELL are they supposed to make sure they are voting for qualified candidates, unless SOMEONE makes sure of the qualifications?

But that authority is NOT given the federal government, anywhere.

So we get to this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [\quote]
The power to determine eligibility is NOT delegated to the federal government, NOR is it prohibited to the states. Therefore, it is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Obviously (at least to people with brains instead of donkey shit in their skulls) the people are not going to, individually, determine eligibility. In fact the courts so far have ruled that the people, individually, do not even have the authority to question eligibility. Therefore, the only one left standing to exercise the authority to determine eligibility ARE the States.
Click to expand...


Not really. The President of the Senate could easily exercise that authority.
Click to expand...
 
NigelTufnel said:
So, in your view, a state can decide additional eligibility requirements for the office of the president of the United States?
Click to expand...
And in comes the inevitable strawman bullshit. Nothing has been said about ADDITIONAL requirements. What is being discussed is the state's authority - indeed RESPONSIBILITY - to assure that any candidate for office meets the requirements ALREADY SET DOWN in the Constitution.

It has been a matter that, in actuality, has been woefully ignored all this time, because, until now, no candidate's eligibility has been questioned. And it does not matter if that questioning is valid or not. The FACTS are that eligibility NEEDS to be determined, and SHOULD have been all along. And the ONLY ones with that authority are the States.
 
Damocles said:
Actually I was just giving what is true. If he doesn't show the documents, some states will not be able to put his name on the ballot. They passed laws on it.

If you think that makes me a birther than you are odd. I am simply reporting the truth.

While I am curious as to what exactly he is hiding on his Birth Certificate I truly believe that there is one that we will eventually see.
Click to expand...

you are a birther, Damo, just admit it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Not really. The President of the Senate could easily exercise that authority.
Click to expand...
Show me where the authority to determine candidate eligibility is granted the President of the Senate (ie: VP of the U.S.) Funny, it is NOT granted him, is it? Therefore, Constitutionally, he can NOT exercise that authority. Where do you get the impression that federally elected officials can simply start exercising any authority they wish? This is not about who COULD do the job, but who has the Constitutional AUTHORITY to do so. Since the authority is NOT granted ANY federal entity, nor is the authority DENIED to the states, then it is AUTOMATICALLY reserved to the States. Period.
 
Damocles said:
Actually I was just giving what is true. If he doesn't show the documents, some states will not be able to put his name on the ballot. They passed laws on it.

If you think that makes me a birther than you are odd. I am simply reporting the truth.

While I am curious as to what exactly he is hiding on his Birth Certificate I truly believe that there is one that we will eventually see.
Click to expand...

We think you're a birther because of your comments that he's hiding something on the BC. No non-birther thinks anything of the sort.
 
I truly wonder what the attitudes of certain posters would be if it were a REPUBLICAN candidate whose origin of birth were in question.

Frankly, it SHOULD be a requirement in ALL states that eligibility of ALL federal candidates be proven, according to the laws of each respective state, before they can be added to the ballot in that state. I applaud those states which are passing laws for such a requirement.

And in 2012, all Obama needs do is meet the requirements of those state laws, AS WILL EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE. (ie: sorry, Arnold, you won't get a pass on this one....)
 
christiefan915 said:
We think you're a birther because of your comments that he's hiding something on the BC. No non-birther thinks anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
Whatever. There are many people who don't question his eligibility but still wonder what he has to hide on such a normal document.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Like I said, the fact that persons born out of state can obtain birth certificates issued by Hawaii does not mean that a person born out of state can obtain a birth certificate that says that they were born in Honolulu.




I just don't care.
Click to expand...

1. But it does mean that the certificate that The Obama is using to claim eligibility wouldn't have qualified him to get a driver's license in the State that it was issued.

2. Hacks never do.
 
Damocles said:
Actually I was just giving what is true. If he doesn't show the documents, some states will not be able to put his name on the ballot. They passed laws on it.

If you think that makes me a birther than you are odd. I am simply reporting the truth.

While I am curious as to what exactly he is hiding on his Birth Certificate I truly believe that there is one that we will eventually see.
Click to expand...

Rush just postulated a theory that Abercrombie did this as set-up for something later.
 
Good Luck said:
I truly wonder what the attitudes of certain posters would be if it were a REPUBLICAN candidate whose origin of birth were in question.

Frankly, it SHOULD be a requirement in ALL states that eligibility of ALL federal candidates be proven, according to the laws of each respective state, before they can be added to the ballot in that state. I applaud those states which are passing laws for such a requirement.

And in 2012, all Obama needs do is meet the requirements of those state laws, AS WILL EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE. (ie: sorry, Arnold, you won't get a pass on this one....)
Click to expand...

My own opinion is that if states and fed need to see a BC as proof of eligibility, I'm okay with it.

When people questioned McCain's eligibility due to being born in the Canal Zone, I supported him. I stated that both candidates were eligible and their birth places didn't exclude them.

This continuing obsession birthers have about Obama is pure idiocy. I don't whether you're a birther or not, so don't go off on me.
 
Damocles said:
Whatever. There are many people who don't question his eligibility but still wonder what he has to hide on such a normal document.
Click to expand...

Then they're idiots. The presumption that there is something to hide on the document is what makes them birthers.

I notice you said "what he has to hide", not "if he has something to hide".

You've worded your statement to claim that something damning really exists, and only needs to be shown.
 
christiefan915 said:
When people questioned McCain's eligibility due to being born in the Canal Zone, I supported him. I stated that both candidates were eligible and their birth places didn't exclude them.
Click to expand...
Yet there was nothing wrong with asking McCain to provide those credentials needed to prove his eligibility. Nor is there anything wrong with asking the same things of ALL candidates in the upcoming 2012 election, which is exactly what certain states have passed laws for.

Those up in arms about states simply taking the precaution of assuring all candidates meet their Constitutional qualifications are the ones I wonder whether their frothing mouths would be so active if it were a republican whose credentials were being questioned.

IMO, this entire sadly comical fiasco is, ultimately, a positive thing. It is now obvious we need a system in place to assure qualification of candidates. Had we one in place, or even just a few states had one in place, this entire issue would have been dead before the primaries.

Constitutionally, the responsibility lies with the states. Therefore I fully support state laws that demand proof of qualifications, along with the consequence that a candidate cannot be on the ballot if they do not meet the required proofs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top