Shouldn't we have an official process to determine a candidate's eligibility?
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
February 24, 2009 12:30pm CST
I'm not bringing this up to bash any candidate or simply rehash the controversy over Obama's birth certificate. I'm bringing this up because some people seem to trust our government so blindly that they believe the very PRESENCE of a candidates name on a ballot means he was thoroughly vetted. I can tell you and show you right now that they don't vet candidates AT ALL. All they want is your name, money, and possibly a certain amount of signatures although rules vary from state to state.
As a simple example look at the vice presidential candidate for the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7882
Look a little young? He's 22. That's not even old enough to rent a car in Florida much less be Vice President yet he was on the ballot here and in a dozen other states. His age is no secret. He readily admitted he was born in 1986. Nobody bothered to vet him or remove him from the ballot.
I know some of you will say that's because he was a third party candidate with no chance of winning. Well, anyone who actually pays attention to third party candidates knows that they are held to a HIGHER standard than the candidates from the two major parties. Democrats and Republicans aren't even required to submit paperwork on time to get candidates names on the ballots in Texas. Chuck Baldwin sued to have Obama and McCain removed from the ballots there and his case was thrown out without a single hearing.
So that leaves me with two questions:
1. Shouldn't we have an official process to determine a candidate's eligibility?
2. Why the hel1 don't we ALREADY have such a process?
4 people like this
6 responses
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
24 Feb 09
Hello Taskr,
There is a process -- actually 50 individual processes. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the 50 Secretaries of State, and the authorized state representatives to the Electoral College to determine the eligibility of prospective candidates.
Certain of the lawsuits filed in the pursuit of the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate have included the Secretaries of State, though they have been illegally purged. No kidding, if people take the time to read the doc's from the plethora of lawsuits filed, they will be astonished at some of the 'grounds' for dismissal. In fact, one case that listed a state S.O.S. as a defendent was actually dismissed by a judge because the petition allegedly didn't prove that there was sufficient "public interest" to support proceeding.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! Since when is "public interest" a legal precedent??????????????
Should there be a federal process? No, I don't believe so. We are fifty sovereign states. To allow the federal government oversight is an encroachment on our system of governance. Though, we do supposedly have federal recourse for when the states fail to perform the duties that are clearly, legally assigned to them. That recourse is called The Supreme Court of the United States of America. Though, the system has surely broken down, because the SCOTUS failed to enforce the legal obligation of the secretaries of state and the EC. When the states and the federal government each subvert their legal obligations, then it is difficult to not aptly designate the environment as tyrannical!
2 people like this
@thedogshrink (1266)
• United States
24 Feb 09
Well said, as usual, Ladyluna! In fact, I want to change my answer to align with yours, except add that what we actually need is a procedure for addressing the situations we are seeing where the courts and SOS are not following the law, and are scoffing at the people. Not sure how that could be done, without being able to overturn good rulings. But when this many people are questioning such a serious point about a candidate, now a President, and the courts say the people don't have standing!?!?! I just don't know how to file that in my brain, that the courts "think" that we, the people don't have standing to question a candidate's eligibility for the highest office in the land.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
24 Feb 09
I agrea, there should be such a proicess. but to be done propperly and without suspician, it MUST be done at the state level. this is something the federal government should absolutely not be involved in, it's like asking the alchoholics to mind the bar for a bit. There are several states already considering legislation that will amend election and ballot requirements. It shouldn't be that difficult. When you present your name and the signatures required for admission on to the ballot, you present a certified copy of your birth certificate and a sworn statement signed and witnessed by notary.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
24 Feb 09
We could make it part of the election process. They have to file income tax returns and financial statements. Why not a Birth Certificate, educational records and employment history. Look at the flap over Bush and Kerry and the military record. Lets get the truth out there.
1 person likes this
@thedogshrink (1266)
• United States
24 Feb 09
Yes, I think we should -- and it should be an amendment to the Constitution, not something that can be easily changed at whim. I think there is no procedure because so many things that are happening nowadays were so beyond the realm of our ability to imagine just 10 years ago. I think it just never occurred to us or apparently even our forefathers that someone would blatantly disregard a request for such information, or that such things could be so easily hidden as they can be in the 21st century.
1 person likes this
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
24 Feb 09
I fully agree. It's too easy to get on the ballot, especially for a candidate of the main parties. It's not like they have to appear in person to do this. Each state needs to take a good look at their requirements and make the respective changes. If the allegations would turn out to be true, well, the US would be the laughingstock of the world. It's already embarrassing enough that this has all of us caused to speculate about the legitimacy of Obama's claim to the presidency. Obviously there is something that needs to be fixed and instead of ignoring it people should finally fix it.
1 person likes this
