Constitutionality of Obama's Actions

[First]

The executive branch pretty much thumbed its nose at the judicial branch of government and at the Constitution.

No, they didn't, and you couldn't show otherwise if your life depended on it.

/trollthread.

 

[xBiffx]

States do NOT have the right to question the validity of another states birth records. Per the constitution states are supposed to give full faith and credit to other states records.

Hawaii has said Obama was born there. There is a certified birth certificate from Hawaii, that has been confirmed by the govt of Hawaii as being valid. Georgia by the Constitution is to respect that as being a vaild birth certificate because Hawaii says it is a vaild birth certificate.

Since its the states that elect the president through the electoral college, states have the right, usually through their Secretaries of State to validate and question the qualifications of the candidates. There is no federal agency that certifies candidates so each state has their own laws to due so since they have the right the decide the electorates.

 

[Capt Caveman]

No, you're just ignorant to the fact that your government is ignoring you, and doing only what it wants, to please itself. They are above the law, and have placed themselves there, and will continue to push the limits.

Incorrect again. Please tell us how the US is a dictatorship. I look forward to your research.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Since its the states that elect the president through the electoral college, states have the right, usually through their Secretaries of State to validate and question the qualifications of the candidates. There is no federal agency that certifies candidates so each state has their own laws to due so since they have the right the decide the electorates.

So the states have the right to violate the Constitution (which is really the issue here) in requiring something fundamentally improper? The Superior Court of Georgia has said that neither you nor Obama can be required to show up at a deposition. The judge will have his rear handed to him, and if the powers that be are going to effectively disenfranchise Georgians because of an invalid requirement then I'd hate to be the ones who forced this.

 

[First]

Since its the states that elect the president through the electoral college, states have the right, usually through their Secretaries of State to validate and question the qualifications of the candidates. There is no federal agency that certifies candidates so each state has their own laws to due so since they have the right the decide the electorates.

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself and people are laughing at you for it.

 

[etrigan420]

Since its the states that elect the president through the electoral college, states have the right, usually through their Secretaries of State to validate and question the qualifications of the candidates. There is no federal agency that certifies candidates so each state has their own laws to due so since they have the right the decide the electorates.

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself and people are laughing at you for it.

No. Don't listen to First...please continue...


This shit is *soooo* money. :biggrin:

 

[piasabird]

Cant wait for the Vice President to take over!

 

[piasabird]

Federal laws apply to election of the president. It is probably a lot more complicated than that. Surely you have to submit your name to some federal office if you plan on running for president and not 50 different offices one in each state. However, how each state handles its delegates is up to that state. I dont quite understand what legal preference there is for political parties and conventions. They have more stringent policies for 3rd party candidates.

 

[xBiffx]

So the states have the right to violate the Constitution (which is really the issue here) in requiring something fundamentally improper? The Superior Court of Georgia has said that neither you nor Obama can be required to show up at a deposition. The judge will have his rear handed to him, and if the powers that be are going to effectively disenfranchise Georgians because of an invalid requirement then I'd hate to be the ones who forced this.

Where is the violation in States certifying candidates? The States decide the election of the president through the electoral college. There is no federal election board. Each state has a Secretary of State which certifies elections, part of that is to ensure candidates are qualified to be on the ballot and that doesn't just mean that they payed the fees and registered to be on the ballot. Georgia has taken it a step further with a law that says that any registered voter can question these qualifications and its not just up to the Secretary of State there.

 

[Fern]

I'm not sure there's any constitutional issue since we're dealing with state law. Obama 'the candidate' needs to comply with SC law if he wants to be on the ballot.

IMO, Obama 'the President' should make some effort to cooperate/comply, and not just completely blow them off as it appears he has done.

For one thing it looks arrogant. For another he shouldn't be setting an example where we blow off laws/rules we don't like, or don't agree with, or feel they are unnecessary or inconvenience us. There are an awful lot of federal law/rules that fall into one of those categories yet we still want people to follow them.

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm not sure there's any constitutional issue since we're dealing with state law. Obama 'the candidate' needs to comply with SC law if he wants to be on the ballot.

IMO, Obama 'the President' should make some effort to cooperate/comply, and not just completely blow them off as it appears he has done.

For one thing it looks arrogant. For another he shouldn't be setting an example where we blow off laws/rules we don't like, or don't agree with, or feel they are unnecessary or inconvenience us. There are an awful lot of federal law/rules that fall into one of those categories yet we still want people to follow them.

Fern

Why am I not in any way surprised you think Obama should cater to the frivolous whims of established nut jobs when there is no actual need for it?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure there's any constitutional issue since we're dealing with state law. Obama 'the candidate' needs to comply with SC law if he wants to be on the ballot.

IMO, Obama 'the President' should make some effort to cooperate/comply, and not just completely blow them off as it appears he has done.

For one thing it looks arrogant. For another he shouldn't be setting an example where we blow off laws/rules we don't like, or don't agree with, or feel they are unnecessary or inconvenience us. There are an awful lot of federal law/rules that fall into one of those categories yet we still want people to follow them.

Fern

He's not legally obligated to comply, he's not 'blowing off' anything. Everyone is legally obligated to comply with federal laws, so it's really not the same thing.

 

[JSt0rm]

it would be funny as hell if Georgia blocked Obama from being on the ballot.

 

[First]

I'm not sure there's any constitutional issue since we're dealing with state law. Obama 'the candidate' needs to comply with SC law if he wants to be on the ballot.

IMO, Obama 'the President' should make some effort to cooperate/comply, and not just completely blow them off as it appears he has done.

For one thing it looks arrogant. For another he shouldn't be setting an example where we blow off laws/rules we don't like, or don't agree with, or feel they are unnecessary or inconvenience us. There are an awful lot of federal law/rules that fall into one of those categories yet we still want people to follow them.

Fern

Jeez, sad to see you're still on the birther binge dude. Get over it, there's literally no way Obama or any POTUS could look arrogant for blowing off blowhard's whose evidence amounts to suspicion and conspiracies about Kenyan plots to become U.S. citizens.