Quantcast

Who decides if a candidate for president is elligible to run for office?

Uranos7 2012/04/21 00:40:41
You!
Add Photos & Videos

The truth is there are no requirements to 'run' for president.
The electoral college determines elligibility of candidates based solely on the number of votes recieved for each candidate.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html

Anyone can be on the ballot if they get enough signatures.
.http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/cand_qual_pres_dem.pdf

So what Obama's Lawyer said in the recent trial was true if Mickey Mouse could get enough signatures he could be on the ballot. Then if he got enough votes he could be made president; because under the current system it is each voters responsibility to check the credentials of a candidate and vote accordingly.

This is why several states are moving to require a candidate prove elligibility before being placed on the ballot.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/04/21 21:10:29
    The candidate themself
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +4
    These days, the candidate can say, "I am eligible," and no one wants to challenge him. All the voters can do is decide whether to elect him or not.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Not-A-RINO the dea... 2012/04/23 20:09:54
    Not-A-RINO
    One of the hardest things to convey through the written word is the meaning. Having said that, more often than not, if something would be beneficial to the average citizen, you can bet the farm the Left would be against it - unless it caters to one of their selected groups such as blacks, welfare queens, Wall Street bankers, environmental wackos, animal rights kooks, and militant unions.

    "Good for the country" is what the average person would see as a plus for the country - not some brain-dead bureaucrat who could care less about anyone. For example, the Leftists in Congress have deemed it would be good for the country to illegally pass ObamaCare rather than opening up more competition in the medical industry and making it much more affordable for all. As you point out, only they, in their infinite wisdom, know how to provide healthcare better than the free market and free consumers. One look at Social Security, the post office and just about anything else the government runs and you'll see most people will be screwed under their system - except those who are cashing in. Good for the country? Yeah, right.
  • Uranos7 Not-A-RINO 2012/04/23 20:52:02
    Uranos7
    +1
    Yeah the liberals see what is good for the country as giving out more free stuff; without stopping to think about how we (the tax payers) are going to pay for it. To the conservatives it only makes sense that people must live on a budget, so must the government.
  • the dea... Not-A-RINO 2012/04/24 22:24:09
    the dead redcoat
    well if we cant convey it through the written word we are in trouble.
    What shall we use? Pictographs? Action always speaks louder than words. what action do you propose? Revolution?
  • Uranos7 the dea... 2012/04/24 22:44:26
    Uranos7
    +1
    spanish revolution

    If it gets much worse it may come to that. I am hoping a change in leadership will be good enough to shock capital hill back to it's senses.
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/04/21 04:12:25
    Electoral college
    jackolantyrn356
    +1
    You leave out much. A qualification a real proff of citizenship. Is there a schoo;l trainl from the public schools. The College cannot be said from thre mouth out and be believed. Such things as Thesis and other demonstrations of Lawyerhood.
    Trith is all we ever got from Obasma is a story booik and I'm rather tired of that.
  • Huntclan 2012/04/21 03:52:31
    You the voters
    Huntclan
    I looked into it a little when I was evaluating the Birther Movement and got lost. Although it is spelled out in the Constitution, there seems to be some question as to who verifies that the criteria is met.

    Last I knew it fell upon the individual States. Because there are different interpretations on what a Natural Born Citizen between the States is, I dropped it I thought it had to be verified by each State though.
  • Uranos7 Huntclan 2012/04/21 04:40:04
    Uranos7
    +1
    That is how he slipped through noone is really checking.
    They are just assuming that some else did.
  • Huntclan Uranos7 2012/04/21 10:02:28
    Huntclan
    Most people think that the President goes through some sort of Security Clearance investigation. This is not true, upon inauguration, the President is granted a "Need To Know" Clearance by virtue of his post. You must have two things to gain access to Classified information: The appropriate level security clearance and the need to have that information as part of your job (Need to Know)... That satisfies both requirements.

    Instead of trying to figure this out in the backwards-ass way we are trying, why can't we just ask the candidates/Presidents? Why doesn't somebody ask Bush 1 & 2, Clinton or even Obie himself:

    Who did you provide citizenship documentation to and what did you provide?

    I'll bet that Romney, McCain, etc... never had to provide documentation. Somebody should ask McCain and other candidates. I'll bet you the following statements are true:

    1) There is no requirement under any law or in the Constitution to provide a Birth Certificate as a form of identification to fulfill the Natural Born Citizen Requirement.
    2) There is no requirement under any law or in the Constitution to provide any citizenship documentation to run for President.

    If those two statements are true, I think someone could be elected President and by some inherent power or privilege of the position - suspend, quash or ignore any investigation to determine his/her eligibility.
  • Uranos7 Huntclan 2012/04/21 10:47:29
    Uranos7
    You definately do not watch the news or even do any research or you would know that both of the candidates you have mentioned have had that question asked them and they have already satisfied thier elligibility.
    McCaan's was actually headline news during the last election because some thought that because he was boen on a military base in Panama to 2 citizen parent he did not qualify but the 12th amendment has a provision added for military families.
    Also he had been in the military so his were on record.
    Romney was challenged because his father held dual citizenship with Mexico easily rebuked.
    Both Bush's served in the military where thier citizenship papers were on record.
    Clinton : maybe we should have but IDK if anyone questioned his.
    Neither Obama or anyone else has stated who verified his elligibility before he entered the white house.
    It was supposed to be party leader Pelosi but under oath she stated she had never seen his birth certificate
  • Huntclan Uranos7 2012/04/21 15:38:29 (edited)
    Huntclan
    I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

    There must be a formal process by which EVERY candidate proves themselves eligible -- Right? What is that process? Let's ask those who went through the process. That is why I mentioned earlier candidates and presidents. They know what it is.

    McCain's information is on record, but he had to release the information to somebody, right? Or, because he wasn't elected - Did he not need to provide the information?

    Certainly Bush provided the information. Ask him who he had to provide it to then compare that with what Obama says.

    I heard the Pelosi thing before (Obie provides House Leader appropriate docs), yet I can not find where that requirment is stated. When I press people on that issue, they either fall-back on "Well, he must of gotten a thorough background investigation" or "they have to prove it to the states to get on the ballot."

    Edited to add: Okay, I just read the OCON stuff (http://wtpotus.wordpress.com... ) and understand the process better.
  • Uranos7 Huntclan 2012/04/22 00:26:50
    Uranos7
    Both Bush's were in the military so all thier records were already on file but maybe Clinton can tell us.
  • Huntclan Uranos7 2012/04/22 02:29:50
    Huntclan
    On file? They still had to provide the documentation to someone.
  • 3003573 2012/04/21 02:13:10
  • Uranos7 3003573 2012/04/21 03:00:45
    Uranos7
    Nice try but nothing in there about checking or determining qualifications for the office of president.
    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.
    They simply carry out the wishes of the voters.
  • 3003573 Uranos7 2012/04/21 03:42:58
  • Uranos7 3003573 2012/04/21 04:41:57
    Uranos7
    But who CHECKS those qualifications is the question.
    Anyone can say they qualify and if noone checks they get by.
  • 3003573 Uranos7 2012/04/21 05:50:33
  • Uranos7 3003573 2012/04/21 06:51:44
    Uranos7
    All very good points. Kudos
    So anyone can win an election and get to the inauguration; at what part of the inauguration and by who are the candidates credentials checked?

    BTW: I agree on that too someone suggested a lie detector once too, but politicians are such good liars they could probably fool that as well.
  • 3003573 Uranos7 2012/04/21 16:19:23
  • Fire&Ice 3003573 2012/04/21 04:47:19
    Fire&Ice
    That wasn't the question
    Article II sets the rules.
    The question was about who decides.
  • Fire&Ice 2012/04/21 00:55:25
    Attorney General
    Fire&Ice
    +1
    Combination.
    Each party is supposed to ensure the candidate is properly vetted at the state and especially the national level before filling out the Official Certificate of Nomination

    Each state election board/committee and Attorney's General are to see the process is followed accordingly.
  • Uranos7 Fire&Ice 2012/04/21 01:04:36
    Uranos7
    REQUIREMENTS
    There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot
    as a presidential candidate in the Presidential Primary Election:
    1. by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
    2. by circulating nomination petitions

    See petitions can overide thier decision
  • Fire&Ice Uranos7 2012/04/21 01:48:32
    Fire&Ice
    +1
    Regardless, each state MUST file a notarized Official Certificate of Nomination which contains the Constitutional eligibility clause that says the candidate is legally eligible to hold the office sought, according to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    People can petition all they want but SOMEBODY has to sign the OCON which means they have properly vetted the candidate.
  • Uranos7 Fire&Ice 2012/04/21 02:03:41
    Uranos7
    That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
    First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office.

    http://butterdezillion.wordpr...

    Pelosi did not want her name on a legal document saying Obama was legit so they changed the form.
  • Fire&Ice Uranos7 2012/04/21 02:24:08
    Fire&Ice
    +1
    Actually, Pelosi issued an OCON that had the clause to Hawaii ONLY because they wouldn't certify.
    The copy she sent to all 49 other states omitted the clause.
    Way too much to explain, but here's the whole shootin' match explaining the intricate time-line and how they pulled it off.
    It's long, but well worth saving and reading the entire thing.

    http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/...
  • Uranos7 Fire&Ice 2012/04/21 07:08:45 (edited)
    Uranos7
    Very interesting it was late so I only got through half of it, but this phrase really caught my eye.
    Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii to invoke an obscure law and approve Obama’s inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot…even though he was never determined to be constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.

    According to that article his own state had questions about his elligibility untill strongarmed by the Democratic party headed by Pelosi and Obama himself.
  • Fire&Ice Uranos7 2012/04/21 13:15:42
    Fire&Ice
    Exactly, Both Kevin Cronin & Brian Schatz (Democrats) knew he couldn't legally be verified and wasn't eligible, and 0bama's handlers and Pelosi played a very calculated shell game to avert any hearing and ultimately provided an OCON from the DNC that allowed Cronin to make an end run around the process.

    After he was sworn in, Cronin did sign one that stated he was eligible but resigned his post shortly afterward.
    I'm sure he was made an offer he couldn't refuse, given the number of other people who had met untimely deaths during 2007 & 2008.

    Now, it has been a series of carefully worded Clintonesque statements from officials in Hawaii and if you read between the lines. NOBODY actually says they held in their hand, a legal paper DOCUMENT that attests that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in a Honolulu hospital on Aug.4, 1961 or on any other date.

    In addition, the reel of microfilm (Archives in NYC) and paper logs that show the passenger lists of all international flights coming into Honolulu during the first week of Aug. 1961 are missing.
    Every other reel, week, month, prior and after are available but that particular week is gone.
  • BabyBear 2012/04/21 00:50:08
    The candidate themself
    BabyBear
    +1
    Other: the wealthy backing their politicians friends with millions of dollars for their own private agendas.
  • the dea... BabyBear 2012/04/22 00:08:39
    the dead redcoat
    BB you could be accused of being cynical.
  • BabyBear the dea... 2012/04/22 01:10:10
    BabyBear
    That would be putting it mildly
  • Hank 2012/04/21 00:49:29
    You the voters
    Hank
    eligible to "run"? ..Okay. Now, eligible to hold the office of president? Try Article II section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly "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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."...what's the point of all the other "stuff" if you can NOT legally hold the office? Say what?
  • Uranos7 Hank 2012/04/21 01:01:09
    Uranos7
    +1
    Basically you can only challenge them before the electoral college votes.
    Once they are in they are in.
    That is why he is adamant to prove his elligibility now because if he wins re-election we get another chance. Until then noone can touch him short of impeachment .
  • Uranos7 2012/04/21 00:47:11
    You the voters
    Uranos7
    +2
    Obviously the founding fathers did not concieve that America would get as dumbed down as it has, They trusted that the people would be intelligent enough to not be decieved by an unqulaified candidate.
    obama idiots
  • Striker Uranos7 2012/04/21 04:27:10
    Striker
    +1
    The eligibility issue arose well before election2008. Should have been PLENTY of those "intelligent" citizens to raise a ruckus, and many did. So then the power proves to rest in the Powers That Be, and the rest of America was consigned to hell. Somehow it didn't matter that the notarized certifications were fraudulent. Unbelievable.
  • the dea... Uranos7 2012/04/22 00:10:18
    the dead redcoat
    I suppose the Democrats did all the dumbing down by themselves. Now what is Romney's 'policy' on education? oh yes cuts and more cuts.
  • Uranos7 the dea... 2012/04/22 00:13:41
    Uranos7
    Actually Romney's policy on education is test the students, test the teachers, reward the good, cut out the bad.
  • the dea... Uranos7 2012/04/22 00:19:39
    the dead redcoat
    ok that was a fast response. there, just goes to show you cant trust all you read.
    however less of the testing and more of the teaching. " No child left behind"
    In the UK all the teachers do is test and test again. Our 20 year olds are an ignorant bunch of lazy celebrity watching wastes of space. Apart from the Asian kids who know good education means good jobs etc etc. We can thank Margaret Thatcher for this. she got rid of apprenticeships because there was no short term gain from them.
    So now all our skilled people are retired and we employ craftsmen from Poland. Hurrah for capitalism.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 18:43:52

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals