The major parties have long issued certifications after each national presidential candidate to each state, for the purpose of informing each state’s elections officials which names to print on the November ballot for president and vice-president for that particular party. Here are the certifications sent to the South Dakota Secretary of State for both major parties from 2004. Here are the certifications from both major parties to South Dakota in 2008. They show that in both 2004 and 2008, the Republican certifications asserted that their nominees met the constitutional qualifications. By contrast, it happens that the Democratic certifications did not discuss whether their nominees met the constitutional qualifications.
The major parties (and minor parties as well) are free to word their certifications any way they wish. No government, federal or state, tells the national parties how to prepare their certifications, or what information they should contain. The information is only relevant because of the assertion made by J. B. Williams a few days ago that for some reason, the Democratic Party national convention officials in 2008 prepared a certification that did assert that the party’s national nominees meet the constitutional qualifications, but then apparently junked that version and went with another version that did not mention the constitutional qualifications.
The birther arguments are nothing but a smokescreen. The fact is that as far as his qualifications for office, Barack Obama has proceeded in EXACTLY the same fashion as every preceding President and major party presidential candidate. Those who assert that he somehow must do more than was done by Bush Sr or Jr, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dole, Reagan or anyone else are resting their claim on his ethnic ancestry and nothing else.
Richard, while I am glad you posted this clarification to your earlier post, I must join with those who have criticized your all too frequent comments on this “issue”. I realize that these posts often get several fold more comments than your average post. While that may drive ad revenue, which is not unimportant in this recession, you are risking the credibility of your site and the regard it is held in by serious people.
I apologize for adding to the total of comments on this nonsense and hope we can move on to something more worthwhile.
It is intrinsically interesting that (apparently) the Democratic National Convention went to the bother to prepare two separate sets of certifications, one containing the statement about meeting the constitutional qualifications and the other set not containing the statement. This isn’t about President Obama’s qualifications; it is about the curious behavior of the Democratic Party officials. These certifications are prepared in a great hurry. The Chair of the Convention (Nancy Pelosi) and the Secretary of the Convention, and the Notary, must each sign their names 51 times, even when only one set is prepared. These are busy people, and it is intrinsically interesting that they went to all the work of preparing, signing and notarizing one set and then preparing another set. I telephoned the Notary to ask about it, but only got voice mail, and she hasn’t returned my call.
Richard-What is the evidence that 2 sets were in fact prepared, beyond the assertions of a web site of dubious credibility? So far the only credible document is the one you have shown for South Dakota, which appears to be identical to that filed in 2004.
As far as the notary, if I went to a notary and he/she spoke with a reporter about the documents I had notarized, I would be quite peeved, to say the least.
Leo Donofrio’s website has links to the Hawaii Democratic certifications from 2000, 2004, and 2008. See it at
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/reverse-analysis-why-did-hawaii-get-a-different-dnc-certification-than-other-states/#comment-10729.
I don’t agree with Leo Donofrio that Hawaii state law requires the national convention certification to say that the nominees are constitutionally qualified. I think Hawaii election law 11-113 refers to a certification by a state party. But the Donofrio site has done a very good job of finding these documents and posting them.
Legal effect of any gang of party hacks claiming that ANY body has ANY qualifications for ANY office = ZERO.
Sorry for any party hacks on this list.
—
The party hacks can NOT have a general letter – To Whom it may Concern — and make 51 copies — for a notary to sign ???
P.R. and A.V.
ABOLISH the EVIL MORONIC party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions of the party hack MONSTERS who have bankrupted the U.S.A. with their EVIL deficits and various undeclared wars, insane spending, etc. etc.
The Democratic National Committee refused to respond to my certified mail raising questions about the vetting process at the National Nominating Convention. Obama, DNC, and the Campaign Committee are all in this together. The Courts are complicit in their refusal to even give the matter of adequate qualifications a hearing. C’mon, Governor Kaine; “fess up”!
High powered law firms like Strumwasser and Woocher and Perkins, Coie, Ltd. will find a way to delay resolution of this matter at Occidental College et al, the State Department and othe sources of information like Mr. Obama himself. He is stonewalling while the MSM are twiddling their journalistic consciences.
Multiple military lawsjuits apparently get quicker responses. They are sometimes the responses, however, of a police state.
All this while ACORN AND OTHERS get 8 billion of stimulus money to do their dirty work.
Birthers are morons.
President Obama was born in Honolulu.
Too F’in bad.
There is a black man in the White House, get over it.
Did Bush REALLY win Florida?
Was Dick Cheney REALLY a resident of Wyoming, rather than Texas?
Is Dick Cheney an actual person or a corporation POSING as a person?
Was Ronald Reagan an actual person or a NOVIE CHARACTER?
Was Jack Kennedy, the illigitimate son of the POPE?
Was William Howard Taft really 2 people crammed into one body?
All are doubtless fascinating and equally relevant as this birther crap. Richard, show us that you are truly fair-minded and let’s have a thread discussing any one of the above.
#8 Bush in FL in 2000.
The Nov. 2000 election in FL was unconstitutional since the legislative, executive and judicial MORONS in the entire FL regime did NOT have a definition of a *legal* vote – especially with the infamous punch card ballots.
See the U.S.A. HAVA sentence written especially for such MORONS.
Due to the same day requirement in Art. II, Sec. 1 for choosing Prez Electors, there were NO legal Prez Electors from FL — sorry — NO retroactive second chances.
Legal result – Gore gets a majority of the legal Prez Electors via the 12th Amdt.
Actual result – the party hack Supremes subvert the Constitution one more time — business as usual.
Is the U.S.A. a LAWLESS banana *republic* or what ???
As a Canadian who has been following American politics for 30 years (and not a fan of either major party), I find Richard’s Ballot Access News to be reliably informative, factual, and unbiased. Canada’s electoral system is boringly simple and fair (we have FOUR parties in parliament, and the Greens get fair media coverage even though have have never elected anyone), so I find the US electoral system to be entertainingly byzantine by comparison.
There were questions about the Constitutional qualifications for John McCain as well, which WERE addressed. The apparent fact that questions about Obama’s Constitutional qualifications persist is newsworthy, and Richard deserves respect for reporting on the facts of this issue.
Since third parties are often hindered by regulations and technicalities, it is only fair that the Major parties be held to the same scrutiny.
Keep up the good work Richard!
#10 A few points:
1. The issues regarding McCain were dealt with by Congress passing a resolution declaring him eligible. In Obama’s case Congress took the same action when it accepted without challenge the Electoral College votes in his favor.
2. The explicit action in McCain’s case was necessitated by the undeniable fact that he was born outside the US. In Obama’s case his Hawaiian birth certificate is prima facie proof of his US birth, valid in all courts and government agencies, barring compelling evidence against it. So far, no one has provided any credible, let alone compelling evidence, that Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu.
3. The persistence of an issue in the Internet age is limited only by the desire of someone to put up a web site to solicit donations and attention. Credible sites such as this one do themselves no favors by playing into the hands of charlatans.
4. There is little doubt that if we had a conservative Republican President named O’Mara whose father was an immigrant from County Cork, 95% of the birthers and the right-wing web sites would see absolutely no problem with that.
U.S. election laws relating to candidacy and nomination for presidential elections is truly absurd, for two reasons. The first factor is the existence of the Electoral College, which means that the true candidates in November are not the presidential candidates, but the candidates for elector. The second factor is that each state writes its own election laws for ballot access in presidential elections. Putting these two factors together means that the U.S. has a wildly irrational set of election laws for presidential elections. The very fact that no one is in charge of determining eligibility for presidential candidates is one aspect of the irrational system. That’s why this is all newsworthy. It has nothing to do with President Obama himself; I am trying to illustrate how irrationally the system works.
Generally, states do not print the names of candidates on the ballot unless the candidate meets the constitutional qualifications. That all breaks down in the case of presidential candidates in the general election, because the true candidates are running for presidential elector, and if they say they are pledged to someone who may not meet the constitutional qualifications, they can’t be kept off the ballot; they have a First Amendment right to say whom they plan to vote for. That is why, in states containing approximately two-thirds of the electoral college vote, presidential candidates who clearly do not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president have been certified, either to be on the ballot, or to be declared write-in candidates. When I cover this issue, I am trying to draw readers’ attention to the irrationality of the entire system.
The Prez qualifications in Art. II, Sec. 1 is just like most of the Constitution — arising under the Constitution — Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1 — BUT FOR the INSANE IDIOCY of the party hack Supremes regarding *standing* to ENFORCE the Constitution.
Constitutional Amdt —
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. legislative bodies and A.V. NONPARTISAN executive/judicial offices.
Repeal all the accumulated election related JUNK in the nearly dead 1787 Constitution — due to the minority rule gerrymander systems — U.S.A. House, Senate and Electoral College.
Folks do NOT understand how EVIL dangerous the U.S.A. gerrymander regime and all 50 State gerrymander regimes are 24/7.
Canadian @10:
Nope, McCain’s issues were NOT addressed at all, and unlike Obama, on who the jury is still out, McCain was definitely NOT natural-born. I conclusively proved that in February 2008 based on existing law and the Panama Canal Zone Treaties. See http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html
So in 2008 we had one major party candidate not eligible in McCain, lied about by his party, and another who is not verified as eligible in Obama, and the net result is we have 50 partisan Secretaries of State guilty of election fraud and conspiracy with no prosecution by the partisan Attorneys General.
IOW, the fix was in, as it always will be until the administrative and judicial positions in government cease to be partisan in nature. There are ways to do that, but nobody wants to for the political power loss.
#12 Alright, Richard, fair enough. If your point is that it is absurd that the election of the one National office is in the hands of State officials (whether partisan or not) then I agree.
I’m going to ruffle some feathers here I’m sure but IMO the reason absurdities like that have endured long beyond any reasonable tolerance is the excessive veneration of the Founding Fathers. Propose changing any absurdity and you can be assured someone will trot out Jefferson or Madison or some other bewigged personage of the past. I’m sure those fellows would have a good laugh at the idea that they would be cited in 2009 in discussions of health care, economics or electoral laws. They weren’t even experts in at least 2 of those in their own time let alone today.
It’s time the US paid its Founders real respect by putting in place vibrant modern policies adapted to the 21st century situation, rather than trying to patch up those that were designed for the 18th.
#12 One further comment Richard-You are incorrect that “no one is in charge of determining eligibility for presidential candidates”. In fact Congress is, but only AFTER the election. When they meet to count the Electoral College votes, if there are objections from at least 1 Representative and 1 Senator then Congress must rule on the matter. My point is in Obama’s case there were no objections, so Congress de facto HAS ruled him eligible, whether some here like that or not.
If you wish to argue that these questions would be bbetter sorted out BEFORE the election, I would tend to agree.
What I meant to say is that no one is in charge of determining eligibility in advance of the popular vote. You are right, Congress is in charge of it in January after the electors vote.
Sorry, Richard, but that isn’t true @17, either. The duty of determining eligibility for office for all races falls to the election officials having jurisdiction over the particular races at the time of filing for the race by the candidates or their proxies, which in the Presidential race means all 50 Secretaries of State.
As for Jerry @11:
1. A Congressional resolution is not binding and has nothign to do with the law, and even if it could, a resolution calling Obama and McCain natural born is prima facie unconstitutional since Congress lacks the power to make such a determination.
2. Neither has Obama. All he needs to do is release the LFBC.
3. Irrelevant.
4. Yeah, sure. And my German fisherman, Herr Ringg, is out of bait.
today may be eventful day for the use and force of the orginal US Constitutional limitations on POTUS/CINC and other cabinet officers
— first in USDC-DCD Judicial Watch has a special three judge district level court will hear challenge to former Senator Clinton appointment to US-SOS.
— also a TRO/PI decision will be made in USDC-GAMD by a USDJ in the case of an active duty army officer challenging the constitutionality of Obama eligibillity.
I disagree with post #18. As I have said many times before, presidential candidates are not genuine candidates in November. Their names are on the ballot, not in their capacity as candidates, but as markers for competing slates of presidential elector candidates. And if the presidential elector candidates are qualified to hold that job, a state can’t keep them off the ballot just because they say they intend to vote for someone in the electoral college who doesn’t hold the constitutional qualifications. They have a First Amendment right to proclaim their intentions, no matter what those intentions are. Of course a state is free to write a law that says no one may run for presidential elector who won’t pledge to vote for the presidential candidate nominated by his or her party, but that is a different matter. And there is no law that tells parties that their presidential nominees must meet the constitutional qualifications. Maybe there should be such a law, but there is no such law. Parties that have nominated presidential candidates who did not meet the constitutional qualifications, through history, have included the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers World Party, the Peace & Freedom Party, and the Socialist Labor Party (way back in 1908).
Since the names of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate appear on the ballot, they are the candidates. Sure, the legal technicality is that the voters are voting for electors, but ask Joe Sixpack about that and they wont know what you mean and they think their vote for Obama on the ballot was actually for Obama, not his electoral slate. If the electors are not listed as candidates on the ballot, then the SoS is committing election fraud since a proxy (the Presidential nominee) cannot replace a candidate (elector) on the ballot and the voters were not voting for who they thought they were.
IOW, the system is fraudulent as it now stands, and people put up with it.
Yes, there is no such law that dictates to political parties that their nominees must be qualified, but in EVERY OTHER race that’s not for President, that qualification is a matter of law enforced by the SoS. Frankly, the First Amendment prohibits such a law, BUT the absence of such checking by the political parties doing the nominating IS covered by election and fraud statutes. IOW, we have a case here of the political parties exploiting a loophole in the law and hiding behind the First Amendment in order to defraud the electorate. The simple solution is to require non-partisan Secretaries of State to verify that the nominees are eligible just like they are for any other race, electors or not, which is perfectly constitutional as regulating an election, and then properly word the ballot to indicate that the voters when voting for President are voting for a Electoral College slate for each candidate, then list the names in pure openness. The SoSs have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to run elections honestly and openly, and relying on the major parties to fill in the blanks for them at nomination (an amazing double standard based in partisanship when minor parties are not allowed the same indulgence!) while not doing so as part of their elected duties in running the actual election is abdicating and breaching that responsibility.