The first inapposite law you dumped onto this blog – 655:14 – clearly only refers to those candidates who are chosen via the primary election, to represent the party on the ballot in the general election. As you know, Presidential nominees are chosen at the party’s Presidential nominating convention. The second bad law – 655:17(b) – only requires the Presidential candidate to swear s/he is qualified for the office in order to appear on the primary ballot. And, as you know (and as I have explained so many times already); in order to prevail in any proceeding based on charges that Barack Obama lied in a ballot filing, for example, swearing he is Constitutionally eligible for office, like he did in, say, AZ; then, you must meet your burden of proof, he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. Of course, as you know, this is impossible, given the fact no documentary evidence exists in the public domain that sustains your accusation.

I am now convinced your primary purpose in commenting on this blog is to mislead your fellow citizens who come here to learn how our government functions and, when it malfunctions; how to fix it. These conscientious citizens are picking up the slack for freeloaders who refuse to do the hard work required to maintain our Constitutional republic.ADMINISTRATOR

655:14 Filing: General Provisions. The name of any person shall not be printed upon the ballot of any party for
a primary unless he or she is a registered member of that party, he or she shall have met the age and domicile
qualifications for the office he or she seeks at the time of the general election, he or she meets all the other qualifications
at the time of filing, and he or she shall file with the appropriate official between the first Wednesday in June and the
Friday of the following week a declaration of candidacy as provided in RSA 655:17.

655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public. II. I, _________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the ____ day of ____; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.

I know what I say sinks in. That’s why so many people (try to) copy my work. Sadly, too often they don’t take the time required to read and understand what they copied; so they keep screwing it up. Even worse, their trail of failure gives some people the wrong impression, we are powerless to control our government. Nothing could be further from the truth. ADMINISTRATOR

Even ignoring for a moment the propriety of supporting efforts of one person versus another based on character (or lack thereof); the cause of action being brought in FL, even if not based strictly on an eligibility of candidate to be on the ballot cause of action; is still doomed to fail. CW asked me whether I thought a challenge would fail, based on the FL law he cited. Unfortunately, the law he cited does not apply to candidates who are chosen at party nominating conventions but only on primary contests. (This would include, for example, the R nominee for U.S. Senate; or the D nominee for State Representative from that district.) I explained this in my response. In other words, even disregarding for the moment, the efficacy of donating to a legal action brought by someone with the particular background you exposed; I maintain unequivocally, donating to any legal practitioner with such a demonstrated ignorance of the law is just plain foolish.

When did you start reading my blog? (Just curious.) ADMINISTRATOR

I think people are missing the damage that can be done by the ‘throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks’ approach to candidate eligibility. States have individual ballot laws and, bringing a complaint in a state without a ballot eligibility law, which fails; could jeopardize the same complaint brought in a state with such laws, which otherwise would have had a chance to succeed. Here’s the example.

The laws of several states including GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA require candidate eligibility to be on the ballot. NH does not. More than 500 citizens from across these 6 states filed complaints of (criminal) election fraud to their state AG, the state’s chief law enforcement official, claiming a member of the D party swore to the SoS that President Obama was Constitutionally eligible for office without verifying he was actually eligible for the job. While these were pending, a group descended on NH, a state without ballot eligibility laws; and filed a ballot challenge with the SoS, claiming President Obama had committed ballot “fraud” by swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for office. (They also involved the state legislature, again, blurring the doctrine of governmental separation of powers.) The NH SoS rightfully rejected the challenge.

It would have been bad enough if the only damage done with regard to efforts to settle the eligibility issue was that countless citizens who believed President Obama was not Constitutionally qualified for office now believed, the state government in NH was ‘in on the fix’; or abandoned valid complaints in their own states believing these had no chance of success. But what could have happened as the result of this one reckless challenge, could have been much worse.

The A’sG in those ballot eligibility states could have piggy-backed on the decision of the SoS in NH and refused on that basis to initiate an investigation, knowing most citizens would fail to understand this was a case of ‘apples and oranges.’ Then, it would be the job of people like me to try to explain to everyone, a ballot challenge to the SoS in NH, which has no ballot eligibility law; is not the same thing as a complaint of election fraud viz a viz the ballot, to the state AG, in a state like TX. And that putting pressure on the AG to exercise lawful discretion to initiate an investigation; was the only way to get an investigation. Indeed, by gathering together, citizens also demonstrate to the A’sG they are asking to go out on this ‘eligibility limb,’ you have their backs

As you can attest, even citizens like you who actively participate in blogging, can misunderstand the differences among state, federal, and local laws; and in defining which candidates can get their names printed on state ballots versus which candidates can occupy the Oval Office. And you have a leg up on those people who have only relied on others to fight their battles for these past 4 years! ADMINISTRATOR

And now a note to all of your readers: If I donate my hard-earned money to anyone’s site, it will be (and has ALWAYS been) THIS site! I hope others will follow suit with this! I hereby challenge ANYONE reading this blog to donate what you can to support the REAL ballot challenger, bar NONE — jbjd! Put your money where your mouth is! jbjd’s blog has spoken the truth the entire time, where other sites have miserably failed us. Wake up, people! We have ONE SHOT at this! Let’s not screw this up by following the so-called “false prophets”! (or more to the point, “false PROFITS”!) GAME ON! And DONATE NOW!

RE: From the Slaughterhouse Cases:

What consequence, if any, would the last sentence of the portion of Slaughterhouse below have on Judge Malihi’s decision?

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.