Category Archives: Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Charlotte Observer Obama facts, Obama hides Birth certificate college and other records, Taxpayer dollars aid in Obama deception, Sheriffs Arpaio and Pendergraph question Obama

Charlotte Observer Obama facts, Obama hides Birth certificate college and other records, Taxpayer dollars aid in Obama deception, Sheriffs Arpaio and
Pendergraph question Obama

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“Pendergraph’s long experience as a public servant, especially his 12 years as Mecklenburg County sheriff, would be an asset. He understands the value of service to constituents and responding quickly and efficiently to their cares and concerns.”…Charlotte Observer

Since the Charlotte Observer endorsed Jim Pendergraph, rescinded the endorsement when Pendergraph questioned Obama’s birthplace and attacked Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff JOe Arpaio for simply doing their job and asking simple questions, I feel it is my duty as a natural born citizen of the United States, eligible for the US Presidency and a native born citizen of North Carolina and resident of NC, to do the job that the Charlotte Observer and most members of the mainstream media have failed to do. That is, explain to you why Jim Pendergraph and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have questions and concerns about Obama’s birthplace, birth certificate, eligibility for the presidency and other records.

I am going to make this so simple that anyone can follow it.

01. First and very important. Barack Obama, unlike John McCain, has never presented a legitimate long form certified copy of his birth certificate. This
includes the numerous court challenges to Obama.

02. Various entities placed images of a COLB (Certification of Live Birth) on the internet purported to be Obama’s but never proven to have originated from
the State of Hawaii. Even if Obama had personally presented one of these in court, it would have been thrown out as conclusive proof of Hawaiian birth. There were 4 ways of getting one of these when Obama was born and one could be born abroad.

03. Numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have been made in court beginning in 2008. These challenges have demanded proof of Obama’s eligibility and most have requested legitimate copies of Obama’s birth certificate, college and other records. None of these challenges has been pled before higher courts
or the Supreme Court of the US.

04. Irrespective of where Obama was born, per the accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen when the US Constitution was written, Obama is not eligible
because he did not have 2 US citizen parents.

05. Obama has employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting documents and proof of eligibility.

06. In 2008 Obama employed Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie and other private attorneys to assist him in keeping his records hidden. Obama hired Robert Bauer as White House counsel in 2009.

07. Since taking the White House, Obama has used numerous US Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to assist him in keeping his records hidden.

08. Recently Obama has employed private attorneys to assist him in eligibility challenges. Remember, in 2008 when John McCain was challenged on his
eligibilty, he promptly presented a legitimate birth certificate.

09. Tim Adams, an election official who worked in the elections office in Hawaii in 2008 signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for
Barack Obama in HI in 2008.

10. The new Governor Of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, soon after taking office, stated that he could find no birth certificate for Obama.

11. In April 2011, an image purporting to be the long form birth certificate for Barack Obama was placed on WhiteHouse.com. Most experts immediately
determined that it was a clear fraud. All one has to do to dismiss this image as evidence is to read the bottom of the image:

“I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of health.” Alvin T. Onaki, Ph.D.

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.”

Or abstract disqualifies it.

12. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, at the request of hundreds of his constituents, assembled a cold case posse, at no cost to taxpayers and performed a professional investigation, seeking the truth about Obama’s birth certificate and other records. The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov was determined to be a forgery and Obama’s selective service application is believed to be a forgery as well. Sheriff Arpaio is currently attempting to get the Selective Service Administration to cooperate.

13. Documented and reported here, Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application. Obama omitted his other names and his numerous parking tickets that he later paid when running for president.

The above are just the highlights, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Any rational, concerned, believer in the US Constitution and rule of law would have doubts about Barack Obama by being aware of these facts.

How many of these facts were reported by the Charlotte Observer?

The damning information about Obama may be in his college records and Selective Service Records.

Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

Bret Baier Natural Born Citizen update, May 2, 2012, Baier show coming with possible panel of constitutional scholars, No mention of Obama deficiency

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”…Marbury vs Madison

From Bret Baier of Fox News May 1, 2012.

“I posted this quickly as a response to all of the emails I was receiving about Senator Marco Rubio and whether he is a “Natural Born Citizen (the same emails comment about Gov. Bobby Jindal). I noted in the blog- there is a lot of dispute about the legal term and what the Founding Fathers truly meant. What I did not put in the blog -was that a large part of this was originally reported by Byron York of the Washington Examiner. I asked him to send me his reporting a few weeks ago – and I should have cited that in the blog this morning… I apologize to Byron for leaving that out. Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it.. and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

The inaccurate  report by Bret Baier on Natural Born Citizen from yesterday at Citizen Wells.

““Bret explains “natural born citizen” requirements for president and vice president”

“Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take– and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father’s nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate — has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a “natural born citizen,” but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14.

They’re all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You’re a natural born U.S. citizen.

That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)… — to your emails… Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

Bret Baier is correct about one thing, the US Supreme Court needs to clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

The article starts out with some accuracy “Many legal analysts and scholars.”

This is true, there is much disagreement and debate.

However, the article ends “That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement”, implying a consensus.

Without getting into all the subtle intricacies of law and legal precedent, I will make this simple.

First, the framers of the constitution provided some clarity with this provision:

“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;”

A distinction is made between citizen and natural born citizen. Also, this allowed the founder fathers to be eligible and also children born from the time of independence to the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/bret-baier-fox-news-natural-born-citizen-error-fox-motivation-for-media-line-have-obama-thugs-threatened-fox-supreme-court-must-clarify/

Bret Baier Fox News Natural Born Citizen error, Fox motivation for media line?, Have Obama thugs threatened Fox?, Supreme Court must clarify

Bret Baier Fox News Natural Born Citizen error, Fox motivation for media line?, Have Obama thugs threatened Fox?, Supreme Court must clarify

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”…Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury Vs Madison

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Bret Baier provided the following statements on the presidential requirement of Natural Born Citizen on Fox News May 1, 2012.

“Bret explains “natural born citizen” requirements for president and vice president”

“Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take– and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:

The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father’s nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate — has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a “natural born citizen,” but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there. There are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. There are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is a U.S. national (that is, from an outlying possession of the U.S.), provided the citizen parent has lived in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to the birth of the child. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, two of them after the age of 14.

They’re all natural born U.S. citizens. That also includes people who are born in Puerto Rico and people who were born in states before they became states. Born in Hawaii in 1950, a decade before statehood? You’re a natural born U.S. citizen.

That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement.. and how you get that status is actually pretty open. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue (and there are no plans that we know of that that will happen)… — to your emails… Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.”

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/blog/2012/05/01/bret-explains-natural-born-citizen-requirements-president-and-vice-president

Bret Baier is correct about one thing, the US Supreme Court needs to clarify the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

The article starts out with some accuracy “Many legal analysts and scholars.”

This is true, there is much disagreement and debate.

However, the article ends “That is how legal experts interpret the “natural born” requirement”, implying a consensus.

Without getting into all the subtle intricacies of law and legal precedent, I will make this simple.

First, the framers of the constitution provided some clarity with this provision:

“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;”

A distinction is made between citizen and natural born citizen. Also, this allowed the founder fathers to be eligible and also children born from the time of independence to the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Glenn Beck receives 5 Orwells for his stupid uniformed comments about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Beck more Alinsky than Obama?, It’s the Constitution stupid

Glenn Beck receives 5 Orwells for his stupid uniformed comments about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Beck more Alinsky than Obama?, It’s the Constitution stupid

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does Glenn Beck continue to make uninformed attacks and insults upon Sheriff Joe Arpaio and millions of concerned Americans?”…Citizen Wells

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”…George Washington

If you are a Glenn Beck listener I suggest you come here for the truth. To be deprogrammed from the modern day Big Brother spokesman, Glenn Beck. Beck would have you believe that upholding the constitution in regard to Obama eligibility is not an issue. That all of the fraud that Obama has committed is not the issue.

Whether or not the Obama camp has used the birth certificate as a distraction is hardly the point.

It’s the Constitution stupid.

Upholding the US Constitution is the most real issue that we can ever have. It is what the founding fathers and subsequent generations have fought to preserve. It is what generations of immigrants struggled to gain. A safe harbor in which they, their families and descendants could thrive in.

From GlennBeck.com  March 2, 2012.

“Huh? Sheriff Joe Arpaio gives Obama 2012 a gift, goes after birth certificate”

“Just when Obama was starting to run out of things to say about Republicans, Sheriff Joe Arpaio decides to come out and launch a big investigation into Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Why he decided to bring this ridiculous issue, one that only gives Obama an opportunity to call the right (justifiably so, in this case) ‘crazy’ – is beyond explanation. But, he’s doing it anyway.

“Okay. Look, I am a fan of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I am a guy who has supported him in the past. I like him, I… I think he’s great on illegal immigration. But Joe, have you gone nuts?” Glenn said as he opened the show.

The birth certificate has long been a tool of the Obama administration to distract people from real issues, like inflation, and to paint the Tea Party as racist and insane. Most of the outcry over the birth certificate had died down after Donald Trump faded into the background of the latest The Apprentice season and Obama releasing a copy of the birth certificate. Sadly, Sherrif Arpaio had to bring it up again.

Glenn treated the whole thing as a joke, presenting some wild theories of his own. Could the Obama administration have presented a forgery only to leave the real one in a vault just to screw with people? Or could he be the grandson of Sally Hemmings and Kruschev?

Even though Stu was really, really , really sick of having to talk about the “birther” issue on air once again, Glenn felt like he had to explain why it’s such a ridiculous story.

“Here’s the thing. You have two newspapers that ran the birth announcement,” Glenn said.

“Which is more likely that he was, he was a Soviet plant from birth? Because really that’s what has to happen to be able to have the 1962 records in the newspaper,” Glenn said.

“Now really? Are we going to the place to where they knew from birth that this guy was going to be President of the United States? Which is more likely? That they knew from birth or the President of the United States and his minions are so good at what they do and they’re taking just great joy and glee and delight in holding that birth certificate back as long as they possibly can, not answering, just to make everybody look like crazy Birthers and then seriously,” Glenn said.

Stu, obviously frustrated, said, “The thing is that the Obama administration actually has conversations like this: Imagine if we didn’t have to justify any of our economic failures and we could just talk about whether or not I was born here? That’s the conversation they have.”

“There is one person on Earth, one, one person on Earth that I am more sure about his citizenship in the United States than Barack Obama, one. His name is Zachary Burguiere. He’s my son. I was there for his birth. Including myself. I have more evidence that he, Barack Obama, was born in America,” Stu said.

Stu’s frustration comes from the fact that every time someone brings up the birth certificate, he’s the one assigned the job of looking into whatever arguments are being created to say Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

“About 80% of my pay I believe comes from the fact that you torture me with this stupid story,” Stu lamented.

When Obama released his birth certificate last year, Stu released a “real” birth certificate lampooning some of the ridiculous theories:”

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/03/02/huh-sheriff-joe-arpaio-gives-obama-2012-a-gift-goes-after-birth-certificate/

Commenter Pete wrote on March 4, 2012.

“I posted on this on his site 2 days ago.

…….Glenn Beck.
I doubt you would read this, but I am trying to grasp your concept. You see the danger of Obama being that of policy, one that leads to ‘socialism’ (really it’s closer to fascism IMHO). His concepts, used before by progressives, always lead to loss of liberty and freedoms and the citizens of this country suffering a failed economic agenda. The misery index is indeed well and alive under Obama, with estimated inflation now 8%, unemployment 16% (1970′s standards). The policy of socialist ‘chaos’ and overburden to the ‘working poor’ has accelerated at massive rates. The progressive agenda IS the problem, Obama is just the messenger of that agenda. You see Obama as another progressive, in a whomp a mole game of progressives, and hitting him with eligibility doesn’t stop the next progressive mole from popping up. Thus, you see Arpaio efforts as futile, even if the findings are accurate.

I do not agree with you here, not in the slightest. Al Capone was not brought down by the horrible crimes he performed, but by ‘tax evasion’. Obama, and his thugs, are in this category. Destroying Obama from an eligibility standpoint will immediately open the door to widespread fraud investigations into his ‘previous’ political life and graft in Chicago (see Rezco and Frawley). People will want to know how this could happen, how they could be lied to, whom ran cover for the greatest fraud in history. Pandora’s box will open, and all the ugly little progressives and their schemes will be exposed for public consumption. The people will start to follow the money, and the media will be forced to report the news. These events have the potential to heal the country, and restore it to a Constitutional Republic by the awareness of the treasonous acts of those from within and their enemies from abroad. Obama’s made up past, and the keys that those exposed lies will provide, will open doors to healing a nation.

While I believe that you are a patriot, a true American, and want to defend the Constitution, you are misguided here by an elitist attitude. The belief that the American people cannot think and process the outward attack upon them, and the means of that attack, without the ‘help’ of the media enlightened. The liberals have long believed that the American people can be led like sheep, and that information must be ‘spoon fed’ to them so that they can be controlled. Try a different approach, give the people the truth, even if you don’t think it’s important, misleading, or a political deflection. Let the facts speak. Let the people decide how important the lies are, and if treasonous should be pursued. When people believe that everyone is deciding for them what is important, what to think, and what stories should be told, they don’t see a difference between politicians, networks, or political pundits. America can be saved, and yes the American people can ‘handle’ the truth. If you really want to help your fellow Americans, investigate what Arpaio is saying in a non-partisan way and give Americans the truth.

Pete…….”

From commenter GORDO March 4, 2012.

Andrea Shea King:

“Hey Glenn Beck, question with boldness?”

“Color me keenly disappointed and disillusioned. Insulted and betrayed by someone I trusted. It would have been bad enough if Glenn Beck had just come out and said why he doesn’t believe the Arpaio Cold Case Posse Report. At least he would have made an honest and truthful attempt to defend his position, giving us assurance that he had even read the report or watched the video of the news conference. But instead, Glenn used the same Alinskyite tactics he excoriates the Left for doing, mocking Americans (millions of which are his listeners) and insulting them for “questioning with boldness” and following the truth wherever it leads, because “the truth has no agenda”, right Glenn? I am so turned off by this, I can’t even watch this video again. And it will be a while before I will tune into his programs, and may cancel my subscription to GBTV.”
[more]

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/hey-glenn-beck-question-with-boldness/

You cannot separate one distasteful aspect of Obama from another. That would be like criticizing Adolf Hitler for just impacting the Jewish economy. Citizen Wells has covered the corruption ties, radical influences, repeated lies, suspect selective service application, IL bar application, hidden college and other records as well as eligibility issues including birth certificate and natural born citizen deficiencies. It is all part of a pattern of lies, diversions, fraud and radical influences.

I agree with Beck that Obama is not the only problem. But have you noticed that for years he has gone out of his way to say that Obama is not the problem.

Glenn Beck, who are you working for? The American people or Obama?

Glenn Beck, you are deserving of 5 Orwells.

Obama ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency, Courts must decide, US Constitution rules, Supreme Court must provide ruling

Obama ballot challenges, Natural born citizen deficiency, Courts must decide, US Constitution rules, Supreme Court must provide ruling

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Once again, as in 2008, we are confronted with the eligibility of Barack Obama for the presidency and to be on ballots nationwide. Once again, we have debate
among concerned citizens as well as legal scholars about the definition of natural born citizen, one of the requirements of the US Constitution. Once again
we have judges avoiding rulings, making excuses such as lack of standing and using inappropriate “precedents” for their decisions. Once again, as in 2008, we
have a Supreme Court that has not done their job, to clarify the law, the definition of natural born citizen.

Marbury v Madison is perhaps the most quoted US Judicial Opinion in US History. I have quoted it often myself. It is fitting and proper that I present it now.

“Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.

In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided:
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

The first object of enquiry is: Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

His right originates in an act of congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. This law enacts, “that there shall be appointed in
and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to
time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years.”

It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was
signed by John Adams, then president of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached
the person for whom it was made out.

In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to enquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has
been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed,
became his property.

The 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution, declares, that “the president shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,
shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for.” The third section declares, that “he shall commission all the officers of the United States.” An act of congress directs the secretary of state to keep
the seal of the United States, “to make out and record, and affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by
the President, by and with the consent of the senate, or by the President alone; provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before
the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States.”

These are the clauses of the constitution and laws of the United States, which affect this part of the case. They seem to contemplate three distinct
operations:
1st, The nomination. This is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary.
2d. The appointment. This is also the act of the President, and is also a voluntary act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the senate.
3d. The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the constitution. “He shall,” says that
instrument, “commission all the officers of the United States.”

This is an appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and is evidenced by no act but the commission itself…. The last
act to be done by the President, is the signature of the commission. He has then acted on the advice and consent of the senate to his own nomination. The
time for deliberations has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer is appointed. This appointment is evidenced by an open, unequivocal act; and being the last act required from the person making it,
necessarily excludes the idea of its being, so far as respects the appointment, an inchoate and incomplete transaction.

The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission; and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. It
asserts, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the Presidential signature.

It is never to be affixed till the commission is signed, because the signature, which gives force and effect to the commission, is conclusive evidence that
the appointment is made.

The commission being signed, the subsequent duty of the secretary of state is prescribed by law, and not to be guided by the will of the President. He is to
affix the seal of the United States to the commission, and is to record it.

This is not a proceeding which may be varied, if the judgment of the executive shall suggest one more eligible; but is a precise course accurately marked out
by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States,
bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this regard, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the
President. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose….

The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is
terminated in all cases, where, by law, the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the
absolute, unconditional, power of accepting or rejecting it.

Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country.

To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

This brings us to the second enquiry; which is, 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.
One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own
discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he
is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists,
and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the
executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing
the department of foreign affairs. This office, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the
mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.

But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of
individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his
discretion sport away the vested rights of others.

The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the
will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear
than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that
duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.

If this be the rule, let us enquire how it applies to the case under the consideration of the court.

The power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated, are political powers, to be exercised by the President according to
his own discretion. When he has made an appointment, he has exercised his whole power, and his discretion has been completely applied to the case.

The question whether a right has vested or not, is, in its nature, judicial, and must be tried by the judicial authority. If, for example, Mr. Marbury had
taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defence had
depended on his being a magistrate; the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.

So, if he conceives that, by virtue of his appointment, he has a legal right, either to the commission which has been made out for him, or to a copy of that
commission, it is equally a question examinable in a court, and the decision of the court upon it must depend on the opinion entertained of his appointment.

That question has been discussed, and the opinion is, that the latest point of time which can be taken as that at which the appointment was complete, and
evidenced, was when, after the signature of the president, the seal of the United States was affixed to the commission.

It is then the opinion of the court: 1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of
peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is
conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the
office for the space of five years. 2dly. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver
which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.

It remains to be enquired whether, 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on, 1st. The nature of the writ applied for, and,
2dly. The power of this court.

1st. The nature of the writ.

If one of the heads of departments commits any illegal act, under the color of his office, by which an individual sustains an injury, it cannot be pretended
that his office alone exempts him from being sued in the ordinary mode of proceeding, and being compelled to obey the judgment of the law. How then can his
office exempt him from this particular mode of deciding on the legality of his conduct, if the case be such a case as would, were any other individual the
party complained of, authorize the process?

It is not by the office of the person to whom the writ is directed, but the nature of the thing to be done that the propriety or impropriety of issuing a
mandamus, is to be determined. Where the head of a department acts in a case, in which executive discretion is to be exercised; in which he is the mere organ
of executive will; it is again repeated, that any application to a court to control, in any respect, his conduct, would be rejected without hesitation.

But where he is directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals, in the performance of which he is not placed under the
particular direction of the President, and the performance of which, the President cannot lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden; as for example, to record a commission which has received all the legal solemnities, it is not perceived on what ground the courts of the country are further excused from the duty of giving judgment, that right be done to an injured individual, than if the same services were to be performed by a person not the head of a department….

It was at first doubted whether the action of detinue was not a specified legal remedy for the commission which has been withheld from Mr. Marbury; in which case a mandamus would be improper. But this doubt has yielded to the consideration that the judgment in detinue is for the thing itself, or its value. The
value of a public office not to be sold, is incapable of being ascertained; and the applicant has a right to the office itself, or to nothing. He will obtain
the office by obtaining the commission, or a copy of it from the record.

This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, Whether it
can issue from this court.

The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court “to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles
and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if
this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely
incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time,
ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be
exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that “the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”

It has been insisted, at the bar, that as the original grant of jurisdiction, to the supreme and inferior courts, is general, and the clause, assigning
original jurisdiction to the supreme court, contains no negative or restrictive words; the power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction
to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United
States.

If it had been intended to leave it to the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to
the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial powers, and the tribunals in which it
should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains
at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction
where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given
to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible, unless the
words require it.

When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system, divides it into one supreme, and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and
establish; then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them, as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in
which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction; the plain import of the words seems to be, that in one
class of cases its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the
clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.

To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise
appellate jurisdiction.

It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a
mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that
cause. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same
as to sustain an original action for that paper, and therefore seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in
such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public
officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.

The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but,
happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well
established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own
happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor
ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is
supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or
establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be
mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if
these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is
abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a
proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the
constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a
level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the
theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it
effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was
established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that
case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of
these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such
ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining
that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of
our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden,
such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the
same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at
pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution — would of itself be
sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of
the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to
say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to
obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles
exported from any state.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered
in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex
post facto law shall be passed.”
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution
endeavors to preserve?

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official
character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to
support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do
solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of
the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if
it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.HTML

I find the following statements to be particularly relevant today and to posterity.

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;”

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a
level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the
theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if
it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Obama Missouri Ballot Challenge, Hector Maldonado, Former US Senate candidate, Combat veteran, MO Secretary of State challenged Maldonado in 2010

Obama Missouri Ballot Challenge, Hector Maldonado, Former US Senate candidate, Combat veteran, MO Secretary of State challenged Maldonado in 2010

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From The Post & Email February 13, 2012.

“Obama Ballot Challenge Filed in Missouri”

“BY FORMER U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE AND COMBAT VETERAN”

“Dear Patriots,
I am dedicated to the ideal that each of us can impact the outcome of the 2012 elections. This Tuesday ironically Valentine’s Day 2012, at 08:15am in hearing room 5, in the basement of the Missouri state capitol building there will be a hearing on the second attempt to force the Missouri Secretary of State to properly have vetted and certify with best evidence available, the credentials of the President and the Vice President in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

In 2010, during my campaign for the U.S. Senate; I was required to provide evidence of eligibility to run for office. If I had failed to do so by such date, I was going to be removed from the primary ballot by the Secretary of State. In my case she was doing her job and I proudly obliged. Later, I found out that I was singled out or flagged according to the person at the elections office.

The president continues to profess that we are all to play by the same set of rules. As such I have taken it my personal responsibility to ensure that all candidates running for federal office this year play by the same set of rules. All candidates, including the President and Vice President need to provide irrefutable proof of eligibility. Furthermore, in spite of the 2000 report from the inspectors general office published in Kansas City, all documents must be submitted and verified for authenticity. No exceptions will be made if we are all to truly play by the same set of rules.”

“Today we are more divided than we ever have been in American history.  We find elected state and federal officials take an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution but then turn a check to suit political interest. As an officer in the United States Army, I have taken that same oath five times in my 15 years of service.  The first time I took the oath was on August 14, 1995 when I became an American citizen.  American Military men and women like me take that oath seriously and we are willing to give our lives to defend it.  It’s a personal insult to Veterans when politicians ignore their duty to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and they don’t.   There is a complete lack of true transparency and oversight in our political process.”

“This hearing to me is not about any single person.  Rather it’s about the integrity of our complete governing system.  As evident in the 2000 report, document fraud is prevalent in all aspects of our lives. Of which the most prevalent is birth certificate fraud and identity theft.   Document fraud cost Missouri Taxpayers millions of dollars every year, it cost the U.S. Government billions of dollars every year.  If we are to protect our political, economic, and national security interest whilst at the same time save tax-payer dollars by cracking down on welfare fraud, voter fraud, identity theft, healthcare fraud what better place to start than at the top if we are all to play by the same set of rules?  We have established long ago, during the Nixon Administration that no one, including the President is above the law.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/13/obama-ballot-challenge-filed-in-missouri/

Thanks to commenter observer.

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

January 3, 2012, Obama eligibility press conference, New Hampsire House of Representatives, Laurence Rappaport, Obama not Natural Born Citizen

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From the Post & Email January 1, 2012.

“New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3”

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
“On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.

The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:

Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation. The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.

Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.

Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.

Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”

Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.

“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.””

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/01/new-hampshire-house-of-representatives-members-to-hold-press-conference-on-obamas-eligibility-on-january-3/

Thanks to commenter Imuha.