Tag Archives: Constitutional Requirements

Dual Citizenship and Public Office

Recently, the topic of dual citizenship became a thing in Australia: [emphasis added to quotes]

First two Australian senators resigned on learning they held citizenship of New Zealand and Canada.

Then a third stood down from his cabinet post on discovering that although he had never even been there, he was a citizen of Italy.

Continue reading

Governor Brewer Vetoed the Eligibility Bill

Breaking News Monday Evening 9:47 p.m.

Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer Vetoed a Bill SB 1070 that Required Candidates Prove They Meet the Constitutional Requirements for President!!

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

David Schwartz , Reuters
April 19, 2011

PHOENIX (Reuters)    Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed two controversial bills, one mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to run for president, the other allowing guns on college campuses, in a clear setback for conservatives who control the state legislature.   Brewer, who grabbed headlines a year ago when she signed a get-tough state law cracking down on illegal immigrants, vetoed the bills in an announcement late on Monday.

Continue reading

Coincidence or Intentional?

by Bridgette

Coincidence or Intentional?

Barack  Obama  takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts

There appear to be three or more major documentary omissions that occurred regarding Obama’s nomination, his election, and are now being seen in eligibility lawsuits. When looked at one by one, we note the problems. But when viewed together, a pattern emerges. Leading up to his election, all pertinent information and documentation about his background was either lost, misplaced, hidden, fabricated, or sealed. These items could be included in this pattern of omissions, but we do not have the evidence in hand.

Here are three that show another pattern of fraud and deception and, I believe, intention.

Omission #1
The Democratic Party was responsible for vetting and certifying Barack Hussein Obama as legally eligible to seek the Oval Office. The U.S. Constitution has only three very specific requirements for the position of President of the US. It appears there were two DNC Certifications prepared by the DNC. Copies of these were recently found online. Both documents were signed, dated and notarized by the same same people on the very same day. When comparing the two, it was noted on Document #1 that the proper legal text was used in the DNC’s “Official Certification of Nomination.” Document #2 was missing a portion of the text that clarified that both the presidential and vice presidential nominees were legally eligible to serve. Document #2 was sent to most States for their records. Not one State official noted the omission of a pertinent sentence. Following is the missing text in Document #2 regarding the constitutional eligibility statement:

” the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #2

Cheney does not call for objections during the Electoral College vote as required by the Constitution. He was reading from a prepared script or the “Rules of Order.” Perhaps the script was altered like Document #1 above, and the specific wording to call for or accept objections was not there to be read. Was it omitted intentionally? At the point in the program where VP Cheney should have read the statement asking for objections, there was some activity out in the audience. Whatever was occurring, Nancy Pelosi jumped up from her chair thus interrupting VP Cheney, and everyone began clapping. When the applause ended, VP Cheney picked up from where he left off when the applause interrupted him. Perhaps he lost his place, or it was overlooked, or it wasn’t in the script he was reading, but the pertinent statement wasn’t read. Coincidence or intentional?

Omission #3

It was just noticed by Leo Dorofino that the DOJ’s brief in Barnett vs Obama (Orly’s lawsuit) omitted a few pertinent sentences from a paragraph they were citing to substantiate their case.

“Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof…” Coincidence or intentional?

Even though I have read most of the cases, I hadn’t thought to compare paragraphs of information presented by the opposition, but perhaps there are others. Even though we can “see” a pattern of fraud and deception, the examples that are brought to light, and that can be substantiated might prove very valuable. Are there any other examples of which you are aware?

(AP Photo/Jeff Christensen)