Monday, October 27, 2008

I Had To Do It

and I'm not running for President, I was just getting a background check to get a security clearance to enter the shipyard to check floor flatness. I went down to the Viginia Vital Statistics Building and had a copy of my birth certificate in my hand in 15 minutes. Every day, normal average Americans are required to produce their birth certificates to gain employment, or to access secure sites to perform their jobs. It's no big deal. Happens all the time. So why is it such an issue with the B. Hussein Obama campaign? Why can't this Marxist half-wit grasp the concept?

The following is an excerpt from Frank Salvato's column at Family Security Matters:

The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.

Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.

Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:

"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.

The FEC’s mission statement reads:

“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”

So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?

In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.

In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:

“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”

Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home