Senator Mel Martinez, Florida, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, FL senator

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Mel Martinez regarding
Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s
citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond
to your concerns.

Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility
to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not
compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our
courts and political processes.

Article II of the Constitution provides that “no Person except a
natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time
of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
of President.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that
qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter
recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On
October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.
In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that
your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace.
Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to
produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question
of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court
further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular
presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in
the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect
Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most
fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he
has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States.
Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr.
Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that
Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.”

Mel Martinez

Senator Mel Martinez states the following:

“Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility
to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not
compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our
courts and political processes.”

Mr. Martinez is correct in that statement.

However, Mr. Martinez goes on to say:

“The Constitution, however, does not specify how that
qualification for office is to be enforced.”

That is absolutely false!
The Constitution and Federal Election Laws allow for challenges to the
Electoral College Votes when Congress convenes.

Mr. Martinez goes on to say that Judge Surrick indicated that voters should
vet presidential candidates and that the courts should not determine
citizenship. Mr. Berg’s lawsuit is still before the US Supreme Court.

Mr. Martinez then states:

“And, he has now been duly elected”

Perhaps Mr. Martinez should look up the definitions of duly and
elected.

Mr. Martinez, what about the millions of Hillary Clinton supporters
that were effectively disenfranchised when Obama stole the Democrat
Primary as an ineligible candidate.

Senator Mel Martinez, would you like to clarify what you stated?

Why Obama is not eligible

flmartinez






Related News

  • “Hillary Clinton is Evil Incarnate” David Schippers Free Republic radio April 2002, Chief counsel of impeachment of Bill Clinton
  • Schippers Exposes Impeachment Debacle, David Schippers interview by Insight Magazine December 8, 2000, Democrat Schippers book Sellout
  • Rosemary Jenks testimony April 30, 1997 before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, Judiciary committee of the US House of Representatives
  • Starr says Clinton ‘chose deception’, Clinton lied under oath obstructed justice and attempted to thwart not just Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit but Starr’s grand jury probe as well, House Judiciary Committee, CNN November 18, 1998
  • Judicial Watch finds pattern of lying by Clinton allies, Stephanopoulos sanctioned, Carville rebuked by court, Stephanopoulos warned on national TV of “Ellen Rometsch strategy” by “White House allies” to “bring down” perceived adversaries of Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch August 20, 1998
  • The Podesta cover-up, Top Clinton aide fighting impeachment, Implicated in cover-up of sale of Clinton Commerce trade mission seats for campaign contributions, Nolanda Hill testified in sworn affidavit and in open court, Judicial Watch September 23, 1998
  • Why is Clinton White House afraid of Dolly Kyle Browning?, Paula Jones witness prepared to testify in senate trial, Browning can testify to Clinton perjury threats and obstruction of justice, Judicial Watch January 11, 1999
  • Declaration of Dolly Kyle Browning March 6, 1998, Paula Jones’s lawyers released, Sexual relationship with Bill Clinton from mid-1970’s until January 1992, 1994 high school reunion encounter, “I agreed not to tell the true story about our relationship”
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *

    *