WND: Sen. Martinez Says Eligibility is Up to the Voters to Decide
WorldNetDaily reports on some fascinating commentary via email by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL):
A U.S. senator has suggested that voters have made Barack Obama eligible to occupy the Oval Office, whether or not he meets the constitutional mandate of being a “natural born” citizen.
The comments from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., came in an e-mail sent to a constituent shortly after the election [Citizen Wells has a copy of this email as a part of his "US Constitutional Hall of Shame" page], which just now was forwarded to WND.
The constituent had asked about Martinez’s perspective on the issue on which WND and others have reported: claims made by dozens of lawsuits around the country that Obama might not meet the constitutional qualification for various reasons.
“Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history,” Martinez responded.
“And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president,” he wrote.
Multiple WND calls to Martinez’s offices in Washington and Florida today asking for comment did not generate a response from the senator.
But he admitted the “federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.”
He cited the constitutional provision requiring a president be “natural born.”
But Martinez noted the Constitution does not provide for an enforcement mechanism, and he cited a federal court opinion that a taxpayer and voter in Pennsylvania didn’t have standing to force Obama to provide documentation of his eligibility.
“The District Court dismissed Mr. [Philip] Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office,” he wrote.
Martinez did not respond to the issue of the actual requirements in the Constitution for the president to be “natural born.”
The WND reader who forwarded the e-mail was alarmed.
“This is frightening in its implications and should alarm every freedom-loving American and military member. I myself am a veteran of the U.S. Air Force (1979-84). Senator Martinez has said, in essence, that it doesn’t matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says. If the people elected him, Obama is president – period.”
“Illegitimizers” (my term for those who do not believe it’s necessary to legally require a candidate to substantiate their eligibility) have often used the “electoral process” as the basis for the legitimacy of Mr. Obama having been duly elected to the office of the presidency. And on the face of it, they are correct — the actual process, per se, of electing a candidate did work; the problem was that the process, per se, cannot presently enforce eligibility requirements, and that’s the main point of contention. I shall explain.
Sen. Martinez wants to employ this same argument to irrationally defend the position of eligibility while simultaneously contradicting the argument:
But Martinez noted the Constitution does not provide for an enforcement mechanism, and he cited a federal court opinion that a taxpayer and voter in Pennsylvania didn’t have standing to force Obama to provide documentation of his eligibility. [emphasis mine]
Fundamentally, the Constitution stipulates what determines eligibility (admittedly, it is general and doesn’t specifically define, say, a “natural born citizen”), but does not specify how said eligibility is to be enforced. That is an important distinction to understand before moving on with this line of thought.
Further, there are currently no laws that require any candidate for the presidency to substantiate their eligibility. Therefore, while the overall electoral process of electing a candidate for President is entirely codified, there is no requirement to actually vet the candidate for eligibility.
So, why is this Senator — as well as many who are part of the “illegitimizer” mindset — relying upon the electoral process, per se, to validate the eligibility of a candidate when that process has no legal basis to make that happen? That is the proverbial $64,000 question.
While the Constitution specifically states that the Electoral College and the Congress have the opportunity to substantiate the credentials of the candidate in the case where the press or the political parties have not done so (for whatever reason), there is nothing that says they have to do anything about eligibility. Again, we have no choice but to work from the premise that substantiating candidate eligibility is not a legally-enforceable concept because no laws presently exist to require it to occur.
The bottom line is that while the “illegitimizers” can exercise the argument that the electoral process is “good enough” to substantiate eligibility or, worse, that if the press, the People, and/or the political parties do not, on their own recognizance, properly vet a candidate for eligibility purposes, that’s simply “the way it goes,” then this example should show as a primary reason why the electoral process ought to be changed at some level to require candidate eligibility.
Yet, why is this insurance appropriate? A few reasons:
- If a State or federal law is passed that requires candidates to substantiate their eligibility (note that this is not adding to constitutional requirements; it is enforcing what’s already in the Constitution), then someone somewhere is accountable for enforcing said law.
- A glaring loophole in the electoral process is permanently closed.
- Since a candidate for, say, the presidency is already required by the Constitution to be eligible for the office, this adds nothing any more onerous to the process and simply makes it explicitly exercizable that the candidate complies.
The good news in all of this is that 3 States, to date, are seriously considering remedying this situation:
Why is it appropriate for the States to take action on eligibility? In reality, the States or Congress could come up with enforcability measures; since the Constitution is explicitly silent on who enforces eligibility, then, per the Tenth Amendment, it can be inferred that either level could proceed accordingly. Of course, any proposal at the State level would have to be constitutional; that’s why it’s important that States don’t add to the plain verbiage of the Constitution.
Update: The RightPundits blog is also taking up the presumption of eligibility.
-Phil
I hope that those responsible for vetting candidates, start doing their job and ask some hard questions about whether or not Jindal is a natural born citizen before passion and mainstream media idolization fog the truth and take the voters on another ride just as they were this time.
Senator Marinez, you my man need to go back to Cuba from whence you came preferably swim back in shark infested waters if you want to come over here and preach your anti-American doctrine. You also were not in the United States for your third grade education just like ‘bamy where we learned that in order to run for president you have to meet the three criteria for starters not to mention numerous other stipulations that the framers put in there to protect us the taxpayers from intervention by a foreign power.
The Electors serve at the pleasure of the State Legislatures. Remember South Carolina! The populace, there, had no voice in the election of President, until the early nineteenth century. Another method of choosing Electors may be sought and implemented, by any (or all) of the States. And, even if an Elector casts an errant ballot, ineligibility resides.
In other words, it matters not who votes for whom…if a candidate is ineligible, then he cannot be President, nor Commander-in-Chief.
Hon. Joe Biden has earned this Patriot’s well-wishes. He needs all of the aid we can muster. Thankfully, Senator Shelby (R – Alabama) is on the ‘right side!’ A clear legal tact is all that is needed to defrock any who governs by charade or pretense.
Gen. Washington is sorely missed, at this juncture. Where have all the Leaders gone? Long time passing…
WakeDL,
While I happen to agree that a public official no longer carries the benefit of nearly as much right to privacy that a private citizen possesses, since there is no law requiring a candidate to substantiate their eligibility (enforcement) even if that candidate were to be asked to produce, there is therefore no such right at this time, as far as I can tell.
In the past, candidates who were actually questioned may have produced such verifiable documentation on their own recognizance.
-Phil
Doesn’t “Up to the Voters to Decide” imply that the “voters” legitimately have a “right” to access the vault birth cert to determine for themselves if he’s eligible?
If the “voters” had that “right” prior to the election and were denied wouldn’t they still have that “right” after the election?
Col. Joe Habersham says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 6, 2009 at 11:52 pm
The Electors serve at the pleasure of the State Legislatures. Remember South Carolina! The populace, there, had no voice in the election of President, until the early nineteenth century. Another method of choosing Electors may be sought and implemented, by any (or all) of the States. And, even if an Elector casts an errant ballot, ineligibility resides.
In other words, it matters not who votes for whom…if a candidate is ineligible, then he cannot be President, nor Commander-in-Chief.
Hon. Joe Biden has earned this Patriot’s well-wishes. He needs all of the aid we can muster. Thankfully, Senator Shelby (R – Alabama) is on the ‘right side!’ A clear legal tact is all that is needed to defrock any who governs by charade or pretense.
Gen. Washington is sorely missed, at this juncture. Where have all the Leaders gone? Long time passing…
I agree with Senator Martinez based upon his exact statement “eligibility is up to the voters to decide”. Now let’s review that comment. If “We” the voters decide to make someone eligible who has admitted to the public through the various media and whatnot that he was born in Kenya ahead of putting himself on a ballot than we have a conscious choice to make. Let me rephrase that. If ‘bamy were to tell everybody before running for president that he was born in Kenya and that he can’t provide a Hawaiian birth certificate and that he could possibly be under dual citizenship than at that point we are made very aware of it and we can decide whather or not to vote for him.
Mr. Habersham –
Apparently, Mel Martinez did, indeed, send those words to me, demonstrating his lack of understanding of Constitutional protocol.
Many folks do not know how the President of the United States is elected, but they are learning! Do not judge him!
Best,
Spencer Connerat
Pinellas county, Florida
Practical Kat,
You said, “You do no have evidence of fraud or perjury because you can’t prove that he was born elsewhere. You don’t have anything but your own opinion, based on nothing other than speculation.”
Remember what you previously said in contradistincting “evidence” from “proof?” I don’t think anyone would dispute that there is no 100% statistically certain proof of anything regarding the President. All of the eligibility issue is dealing with evidence — be it deduced, inferred, synthesized, anecdotal, circumstantial, partial, or otherwise — that people have reason to believe the President is ineligible.
I, for myself, don’t really know anything about this President (a position I think most Americans take, as nobody has ever done a thorough expose’ on the life of Mr. Obama, certainly not during the campaign). Nobody has ever seriously questioned this candidate, and legally or not, virtually all of his background documentation is sealed from public view.
Again, this all boils down to the fact that there is no law requiring a candidate to substantiate their eligibility. Even if someone asked the President to substantiate his title to office, he would not, presently, be legally obligated to do so. And I find that insanely out of place.
-Phil
Great work, Phil! Can’t wait to see the Second Act!!
From: Mel_Martinez@martinez.senate.gov“>Mel_Martinez@martinez.senate.gov
To: SConnerat@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:46 am
Subject: Response to your recent comments
Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:
Dear Mr. Connerat:
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.
Article II of the Constitution provides that “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.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obam a to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.
The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.
Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.
After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation’s President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama’s policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.
I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities importa nt to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
No, you have the documentation in your hand that proves that Obama indeed demonstrated his eligibility to run, by signing papers in Arizona attesting to the fact that he was born in Hawaii.
You do no have evidence of fraud or perjury because you can’t prove that he was born elsewhere. You don’t have anything but your own opinion, based on nothing other than speculation.
Mel Martinez is up for reelection NEXT YEAR!
VOTE HIM OUT!!! Give your time and money to his oppenents!
The Senators are busy protecting the stimulus bill to fill their pork barrels.
Reminds me of ABBOTT & COSTELLO instead of who’s on first it’s who’s the POTUS? Who’s the SCOTUS? On second thought what’s the congress good for? Too bad ABBOTT & COSTELLO aren’t still around they could play this out in real life form.
Alright, where are the actual senators being stashed? I’m really beginning to think Agent Mulder knows where all the real members of Congress are because as it stands right now alien abduction is the only logical explanation to all this idiotic, foreign behavior.
Imagine :
1). Phil as “CBS ANCHORMAN”: Rock’em , Sock’em truth harasser”!
2). Next replacement for American Idol: Reality show of Polictal “HOT HEADS” WITH THE VIEWER’S VOTING THE WINNERS OF THE DEBATES!
AND
THE LOSER OF THE DEBATE HAS TO MUDD WRESTEL “RUSH LIMBAUGH” OR OTHER CELEBRIY
AND
THE WINNER IS AWARDED A NIGHT ON TOWN(DINNER) WITH VOLUNTEER ACTORESSE(S) OR ACTORS
*****
COMMENTS , PHIL?
LOTS OF FUN WHILE EDUCATING GENERAL PUBLIC?
Some of the arguments made above suggest that you don’t need to be eligible to run.
However, the Constitution states “eligible to serve”. Therefore, when Obama signed papers for the State of Arizona that he was a “natural born citizen”, Obama signed a fraudulent document in defiance of the requirements of the supreme law of the land! (I have a copy)
When Nancy Pelosi and the Secretary of the DNC signed that Obama met all the provisions of the Constitution, theirs was a fraudulent document. (I have a copy)
Now we have two are more signing fraudulent documents to advance Obama in a Federal election. I believe that is a conspiracy!
The conspiracy resulted in the CORRUPTION OF A FEDERAL ELECTION by fraudulent means, to wit, advance an ineligible candidate!
When Obama took the oath of office, he committed perjury!
There have been several criminal laws broken! And the perputrators knew it!
Obama’s birth certificate has no revelancy to his prima facia evidence of inelgibility as he fails the natural born requirement.
The BC and other information in the vault in Hawaii could however establish that he isn’t even a citizen at all!
Obama knew when he fraudulently signed he was eligible that he was not!
All Federal Judges know he is ineligible!
Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judicary Committee knew Obama was ineligible. He had the definition of natural born entered into the Senate Record upon passage of Senate Resolution 511! Leahy agreed with Michael Chertoff (a former Federal Judge) that natural born meant born on American soil to citizen parents.
The Democrats were very busy from 2006 on worrying about the natural born provision and tried to pass legislation to get around the clause.
Bottom line, exactly as Phillip Berg stated, the biggest hoax ever perputrated on the American people!
No case reaching the SC has been heard on their merit.
I hope like Justice Scalia says “good judges rule on the law whether they like it or not”.
The meaning of the wording of the Constitution is very clear. They are not different from when the Framers wrote them in 1789!
There are some very good cases on the way.
All Senators should be questioned without debate and just ask their opinions about Obama concerning NBC. Post and make it their Public opinions, debate it later. The main thing to do now is to make it Public Record.
I’ve emailed the senator. Hope everyone will do the same.
Mr. Martinez,
If the WND report is accurate, then I’m guessing you are an advocate of democratic mob rule rather than what the Framers intended. I suggest you make a concerted effort to educate yourself on the content of the document you swore an oath to uphold. If the report is inaccurate, and you believe in the rule of law, my apologies.
Sincerely,
PS
We need to know where our law makers in Congress stand. Very important.
Political party means nothing when determining the Rule of Law.
I may have been one of the Martinez constituents. Here are my emails to the Senator:
Dear Senator Maritnez,
Thank you for your kind reply regarding my concerns over the eligibility of Barack Obama to become president.
You stated, “Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.”
Since there has been no mention whatsoever by the mainstream media about this issue, most voters were in the dark about it. So they could not possibly have voted “making clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualification to hold the office of President.”
Concerning his being a natural born citizen, all Mr. Obama ever had to do was release a copy of his original 1961 long form Hawaiian birth certificate and it would not have become the great issue it is today. As it is, the Supreme will conference at least two law suits this month and deal with the many others yet to come. The Constitution must be followed.
I’m guessing that he will be inaugurated with the question of his eligibility hidden, or ignored, and will be a thorn in the side of those of us who have turned to the internet for truth, rather than the mainstream media.
I’m very disappointed that Republican Senators and Representatives have not pursued this constitutional matter more vigorously.
Regards,
Jim Black
Dear Senator Martinez,
Thank you for your 1-5-09 email in which you said,
“Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election.”
Surely, someone, or some governmental agency, is responsible for making sure a presidential candidate is qualified BEFORE the primaries. It would seem to make sense that candidates be required to present their original long form birth certificate at that time to assure the committees they are natural born citizens as required by the constitution.
It’s interesting to note that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) requires satisfaction of that. I wonder what information they had to make certain President Obama was a natural born citizen.
As it turned out, Americans voted not knowing of the problem with Barack Obama’s citizenship. In my view, it appears that a constitutional crisis has been created.
Sincerely,
Jim Black
EMAIL TO MARTINEZ – 2-4-09
Dear Senator Martinez,
Momentum continues to build against the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet heard oral arguments on any of the cases, it doesn’t mean they are without merit.
Just yesterday, one of the Berg cases was sent to the merits panel.
Docket entries, Berg v. Obama Third Circuit Court of Appeals (SEND TO MERITS PANEL)
ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov
There is a constitutional crisis looming if this matter is not settled. Please lend your support to any effort that will result in the truth being revealed and the constitution upheld.
I have written you before, but have not yet received a response.
Regards,
J. Black
I think it’s time ALL Senators are questioned on Obama being a NBC. The results should be public record, posted on the internet and covered my all news media that will cover it.
This should gain news media coverage and open some eyes.
I agree with this comment. This is why our country is in trouble..
From the Senator’s own web site: Mel Martinez is a United States Senator from Florida, a Republican, a Cuban American,Born in Cuba, he arrived in the U.S. at age 15.
I wonder how the Senator passed the INS Immigration exam on American History? Maybe all of Congress needs a class on the Constitution. Not one of them objected on the final vote in Congress when their state was called. They all should be voted out of office, they failed the test and the American people. I have a problem with a first generation immigrant holding office, at the state or federal level. Dual Allegiance and Dual Citizenship having not been raised in America. The Senator calls himself a Cuban American. For those of us that were natural born on US soil, with both parents being natural born, are we to also define ourselves as White/American, or American/ American, or pick a grandparent from 1700’s and be called Irish, European American? Florida citizens should hold Senator Martinez accountable for his actions and his words when it comes time for re-election. Impeach or Quo Warranto, Ignorance is NO EXCUSE of the LAW! Every elected official needs to do their job or resign.
Senator Martinez is admitting that the “president” is not qualified and can’t prove in a court of law that he was born in Hawaii. We have freedoms in this countrÿ but we don’t have freedom to break the law. Next election I think anybody should be allowed to run for president. Anybody, don’t bring any paperwork. You can be 18 years old and an illegal immigrant, what do I care as long as you can promise everybody stupid stuff that you can’t deliver, good enough. I don’t want to hear Martinez complaining about age requirements. My arguement is “the people voted for him it is now a free for all”. Come on Martinez you can do better than that. The president of the United States can’t uphold the law than I don’t have to either. There’s so much corruption going on at this point that I am throwing in the towel.
Globalist,Traitor,Scum…Off With Your ….!
Maybe the president of Mexico will run in the next election. With all the illegal Mexicans who are registered to vote here, he just might win!
We can also now openly talk about God and Creationism in the public schools, since so many people want it.
I wonder why the Founding Fathers even bothered to write the Constitution. They should have said, “The voters will always decide everything. Whatever they want is Constitutional.” And we might still have segregated schools.
Senator YOUR FIRED!
??????????,
That, my dear commenter, is where potential fraud comes into play. That’s where things could really get ugly, if the President is shown to be ineligible.
There may be no crime against being ineligible, but there are certainly crimes against certifying a falsehood (unless, somehow, those folks can pull ignorance out of their butts).
-Phil
JeffM,
This is a “both/and” argument, not an “either/or” argument.
Obviously, Congress has the power to impeach the President, they have the power to question a candidate’s eligibility, as do the Electors in the Electoral College.
But the States or the People also have the power — and, only in their cases, the right — to question a candidate’s eligibility. This has occurred of their own initiative via the press and the political parties in the past. However, I haven’t read anything in the Constitution that prevents Congress, the States or the People from making eligibility enforcement proposals.
-Phil
PS
All my NBA players are eligible to play just go to Fackcheck.org and we will have their Hawaii COLB posted there without a “Authentic Hawaii Seal”.
That should be good enough, if not I have a long line of lawyers who will see you in court.
I was just thinking—-I wonder how many others are serving in our government who are not Constitutionally qualified??? With Obama being able to assume his position as POTUS without any true vetting and checking….what about the many others who might be questionable??? For instance….is Martinez a legal citizen??? I don’t know….do any of you??? Could explain why he gave such a ridiculous answer to a very important issue!!!
Phil:
Law or no law requiring vetting, Obama (himself) and Pelosi (as Chairman of the Democratic Convention) took it upon themselves to declare Obama eligible. Both of them are to be held responsible for this.
The Constitution is the rule book for all to play by. Sen. Mel Martinez are you saying we just throw out the rules and not hold them to the rules of the game because the winning side won by not playing by the rules.
Mr. Martinez is that how we play the game?
OK next week I’ll have the NBA players play for my high school basketball team and when we win the game other school team can’t gripe because they lost because they were not as good of breaking the rules as we were.
Mel said,
“The constituent had asked about Martinez’s perspective on the issue on which WND and others have reported: claims made by dozens of lawsuits around the country that Obama might not meet the constitutional qualification for various reasons.
“Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history,” Martinez responded.
“And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States”
Not many voters at the time realized they had the ability to ask to see his BC..
Come on, they just keep passing the Ball on this one and no one wants to take the responsibility.
This whole thing has turned into a childish spat as to who was to take out the trash.. “You, no You “.
MG what a Jack A.**.. And to think there are a lot more out there like him…
What happen to this country that we keep electing jerks like this??
Sorry I’m VENTING, because those who voted for nObama forgot to VETT.. Good Grief…
Phil,
There is not crux in this argument. We merely have to review what Amendment X states regarding candidate vetting:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Power is not delegated to Congress to vet. CHECK.
Power is not delegated to the States, as numerous SoS cases have revealed. CHECK.
Therefore, power is delegated to the people.
I understand what you are saying about Martinez’ opinion, Phil. But wouldn’t it be a “given,” based on the three requirements listed in the Constitution, that any and all candidates MUST be vetted – especially in front of, and for the purpose of the public knowing about such eligibility or ineligibility?
Isn’t it true that Nancy Pelosi made the claim that Obama was eligible in the first place because she signed some paper making him the Democratic nominee and candidate?
Wasn’t there a person in one of the states that was found ineligible because he wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and was therefore removed from the ballot in that state? Why does Obama get a pass on this and that guy didn’t?
I can’t see why all of the actions that have happened to allow Obama to get elected (despite the fact that the Constitution SAYS he is not eligible because he was born as a British subject) cannot retroactively be declared null and void. His father (if, in fact his father was Obama Sr.) was NEVER naturalized to the U.S. Both parents must be U.S. citizens for the child to be considered “natural born.” Plus, if his mother renounced U.S. citizenship when Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama Jr. and they moved and lived in Indonesia for many years, then their child became an Indonesian citizen. From what I have read, Indonesia (at the time) did not allow dual citizenship. Not sure if that is still the case.
There is also evidence that Obama traveled to Pakistan when it was forbidden by the U.S. Gov’t. to travel there. Did he use an Indonesian passport to do that?
I am just appalled that this Martinez guy could just shrug off such an important stipulation in our U.S. Constitution and claim that “the majority of people voted for Obama” so therefore – it’s O.K. As Rev. Bresciani once wrote, “The truth is, if what we are trying to show America has even an ounce of truth to it then 305,000,000 Americans have been subject to the fraud!”
I wonder. Would Martinez have cared about “natural born citizen” status if some rogue Islamic terrorist got into the presidency in the same way?
ihveit,
You are addressing the point: since no law exists to require vetting, the candidate is therefore not obligated to furnish vital documentation, even if asked.
And therein lies the crux of the argument.
Good comment.
-Phil
I have one word to describe Senator Martinez:
IDIOT!
There’s simply no other way to explain it.
ihv>> would someone ask this idiot how are we to vet this usurper when he refused and still refuses to supply information that would clear or condemn him?
and why the hell werent we told this 2 years ago if we are the ones to do the vetting?
this country leadership is so sick and apparently dont give a d*&% about the constitution as long as they get their share of the loot
will
Now we know why our nation is in the shape it’s in with an usurper in office. When our senators and representatives don’t care about our Constitution. Martinez and all other of our senators and representatives that do not take a stand in making Obama prove who he is needs to be listed on the internet, so the public can vote them out of office. We don’t need anyone in office that tramples our Constitution!!!Mr. Martinez needs to find another country to live in and there he will find how GREAT our country is with the Coustitution!!!It seems our Supreme Court Justices Need to also find another country to live in. We Americans who love America and our Constitution needs to clean house so people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Martinez, Schumer, The leftist media, Supreme Court Justices. and the senators and representatives who do not have a the nerve to stand up against an usurper that is destroying our sweet Blessed America. GOD HELP US ALL TO TAKE A STAND and BACK THE ATTORNEYS WHO LOVE AMERICA ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HER!!!!GOD Bless Dr. Orly Taitz. Phil Berg and all the other attorneys so dilligently working for OUR FREEDOMS!!!!
Jeanette
Texas
Mel’s a real toon and completely doesn’t get it. OBama never provided any real proof he was eligible and you don’t get in by doing an end run around the consitution.
You first change the constitution, OBAMA supposedly admitted (in one of the BERG filings) revealing documents would hurt not only himself but the DNC. Get that Mel? What would be so damaging as to hurt both, Mel?
*would still like to get a copy of this filing
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL): He just gave “MOB RULE” legitimacy and he’s a Republican?