i found several things online about these things also and one of the sites is http://www.kaufman-tx.com and also look up the people listed above on http://www.RipOffReport.com

So true, if you can’t put him in prison for the above you can’t put him in prison at all.

I think the BC is a Red Herring as it is plain that he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

I think a back room deal was struck back in 2004. Why else do you get the same canned reply from all the Congress people. They are smarter than a rock.

Until someone carries out the law there is no law.

i am a new immigrant to the usa, and now a naturalized citizen. during that process of immigration, i had to disclose and provide all documents of my live from a-z.
i am stunned that a person for the highest position does not have to show any and all documents. (birth certificate, school records etc.)

greetings

It was very ugly.

God rejected King Saul for seeking a witch and ignoring His ways and Barack Obama read 4 Harry Potter (witchcraft-sorcery) books to his little daughter, much to the pride of his wife. I expect God will reject him if we want the word of God to rule over us in truth as “It is written”, not according to religious teachings and error passed down through generations. The way is prepared before us.

You mentioned something that intrigued me. I did some research and discovered the requirements and qualifications for electors.

It is clear that elector qualifications are defined at the state level. Based on this information, the electors are representatives from each state and are therefore under the jurisdiction of its laws. There is no mention in U.S. Code nor the Constitution that defines these qualifications or affiliation for electors. They are also bound by the state’s Law and/or Pledge.

I would say based on this, one could easily make the argument the electors must abide by the laws of the state, making the separation between the U.S. government and the state governments that much clearer.

I just want to tell you that tonight’s show is on and it will be a DOUBLE WHAMMY OF GUESTS AND THE LAST GUESTS WILL BE A SCOOP. There will be an Attorney that will give us some updates on what he is going to do to continue the fight against Obama.

The last Guests will be the lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama case that was just filed on the 20th and his Attorney Mario Apuzzo!! This case was filed on the 20th and is against Obama, Congress, the Senate, the House of Represeantives, Richard Cheney and Nancy Pelosi, for violation of our 1st, 5th and 20th Ammendemnt Rights!!

I am going to keep the first Attorney’s name quite, so that no one can contact him and convince him not to appear on the show, as has happened before. This is being done so that those that want to see us fail can’t spread it to other sources that are working against us. He will give us what time he can tonight as he does have other commitments. I told him that we would be grateful for any amount of time he gave to us. I am releasing Mr. Kerchner and his Attorney’s names because no one can keep them off of the show no matter what they say!

All kinds of good things to talk about and it will be 90 minutes of hot topics, updates and fun. It should be a HOT, rocking show, as well as interesting. We will be discussing the things she would like to see happen for our Country, our Constitution and the swearing in of someone for President that is NOT eligible under Our Constitution to be President of the United States of America!

Please post this on your web site, blogs or any blogs you are associated with or have access to and send to everyone in your address book. There will be another Fast Blast that will be sent 2 hours before the show!

Link, schedule, call in number and times for the Show is below!

http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels

Call In # 347-237-4870

5:30 PM Pacific Time

6:30 PM Mountain Time

7:30 PM Central Time

8:30 PM Eastern Time

I hope to see you all there. There are 3 ways to listen to the show, they are as follows:

1. When you get to the Show page if the show doesn’t immediately start playing for you,
you can click on the radio on the right, minimize the page and listen while doing something else.

2. You can enter the chat as a Guest and read what is being said while listening.

3. You can register/log-in and chat while listening.

The choice is yours.

I hope to see you all there.

MommaE

Excellent argument. After all, the Constitution doesn’t specifically stipulate the right to vote, but that we are allowed to vote, as you so presciently put it.

And so therefore the Judiciary in this country has a conundrum:

Since we are a Union of several States, we have an aggregation of States coming together on a specific date to allow the People thereof to vote for federal officeholders. The Constitution certainly requires each State to determine the “how” in the process of electing officials.

However, with respect to the presidency, this is where things get interesting. The Electoral College (while the phrase is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the term “Elector” is certainly discussed in Article II) is, specifically, a federal, and not a State, entity.

In telecommunications, there is the concept known as the “line of demarcation;” especially on a phone line, the dividing line between your (customer premise) responsibility and the phone company’s. This could, by analogy, be the same way that this federalistic concept works: You, a part of a class of individuals known as the People, are allowed to vote for an Elector, a part of a class of individuals known as the Electoral College, which, in the aggregate, has the right and obligation to directly pick the Executive.

Therefore, according to all logic, an Elector should have the right to question a candidate’s eligibility, while a member of the People simply are allowed to vote or not to vote. That’s what I get from all eligibility-based case activity to date.

Have we found a loophole in the system?

Thanks for the excellent comment,

-Phil

It doesn’t have to be stated in the Constitution. We are constitutionally allowed to vote. Otherwise, there would not be an Amendment XV or XIX. Citizens don’t have standing based on federal election law. We have standing based on state election law. Article II specifies that the State Legislative branch is responsible for determining the method of choosing its electors who ultimately elect the President.

And since nothing in the Constitution bars nor empowers us to vote for electors, Amendment X takes over, stating the authority lies with the states, or with the people. The states have the authority to grant this right. The states have the authority to remove this right. The states also have the authority to prosecute based on the abuse of this right.

Note the following:

“Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).”

Current or future harm can be done whenever electors who we vote for are chosen illegally. The nature of that harm is the real question. And that leads us back to the popular vote. Since I vote for the electors, the harm that is done to me is that my vote has been nullified by another vote being tallied for an illegal candidate. It has damaged my ability to effectively choose those to represent me in the Republic. And that’s why voter fraud is a criminal offense in all “57 states” as Obama would say.

Excellent commentary. Now if we could get an attorney to encapsulate what you’re saying into a proper legal argument, we might get somewhere.

-Phil

Your point is well-taken.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil