Debbie Wasserman Schultz DNC Sued: Certifying Candidates for Presidential Elections Under Microscope

You may remember the name Van Irion in the 2010 elections. Van was running for the House seat for Tennessee’s 3rd District. He lost in the primary to Republican Chuck Fleishmann who is now on Capitol Hill. Irion, an attorney, and veteran of Operation Desert Storm, and went on to found the Liberty Legal Foundation. He is working with John Drummett, a computer programmer for the State of California, through Liberty Legal, to sue the Democrat National Committee and chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The goal is to show that the DNC is not trustworthy in certifying presidential candidates, and to change the process so that State’s can rely on DNC certification. Once the DNC sends the certification to each state, the State has no recourse but to accept the certification and place the name on the ballot. Also of interest regarding this lawsuit, is that the Plaintiffs believe impeachment is not an option for a usurper, because impeachment is redress only for a “legally elected” president.

The lawsuit alleges on page 2:

This is why all documentation sent to the Secretaries of State prior to 2008 identifying the Democratic Party’s candidate for President always included an explicit representation that said candidate was qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. 1

1 [footnote] In 2008 the Democratic Party’s document did not include such an explicit representation; however, the Party’s organizational rules prohibit it from nominating a candidate that is not qualified for the office of nomination. Therefore, the representation was implicit.

On Page 3:

3. This Complaint does not request any injunction against any State or Federal
government official. Instead, this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, to the States, and to the citizens of the United States.

Page 4 claims that some judges have incorrectly decided the American voter is the arbiter of who is qualified to hold office.

From Page 5:

A. Defendants’ Intention to Represent Facts

8. The Democratic Party intends to nominate Mr. Obama as their nominee for the office of President of the United States for the 2012 general election.

9. The Democratic Party intends to send documents to the Secretaries of State of all states announcing that Mr. Obama is its Presidential nominee for the 2012 general election and representing that he is qualified to hold the office of President…

11. The Constitution of the United States mandates “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.” Art. II sec. 1.

12. The United States Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). The same opinion distinguished all other citizens from natural born citizens.

The argument is that both parents must be U.S. Citizens for a child natural born. This is a hot argument on both sides, so please…I do not know what the law requires. I am not clear on it. I’ve read both sides. Understand that I am not clear on this issue, but I do know that the Democrat certification for Obama was changed for the 2008 election.

JB Williams was, I think, the first online writer to come into possession of the two differing certifications signed by Nancy Pelosi. Read that story at Canada Free Press. The first form below says that the candidate meets constitutional requirements, and it has a misspelled word “though” which should be “through.”

…and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

The form below is the second signed form, signed by the same people on the same day. It has the same misspelled word “though” that should be “through,”  but it omits this:

…and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.


The state of Oklahoma received the second form without the certification that the Democrat nominee meets constitutional requirements.

Notice that the missing language should followed the word “respectively.” It appears someone grabbed the bottle of white-out and removed the language that the DNC  could not guarantee.

JB Williams has confirmed that Obama was certified to meet U.S. Constitutional requirements for the office of the President to ONLY the state of Hawaii. In the other 49 states he was certified only be the Democrat party’s duly nominated candidate. I tried to reach the Hawaii GOP and left numerous messages – never received a response.

According to Williams, Hawaii requires that the language guaranteeing meeting Constitutional requirements be on the certification to the State. It is believed not all states, if any, require that acknowledgement, but of course, the U.S. Constitution does demand a president have natural-born status.

According to Mr. Williams in-depth research, the Republican party certifies to the candidate meeting Constitutional requirements. For elections going far back to at least 2000, the RNC has used the same language with guarantee included.

Why did the DNC and Pelosi certify Obama as constitutionally legal to be president, but in 49 states omitted that language and failed to do so?

On March 30, 2011 I requested a copy of the 2008 DNC and the RNC certification for my state of Oklahoma and received them by fax. The DNC form is the same as the second form above. The DNC DID NOT certify to Oklahoma that Obama is constitutionally eligible. The RNC DOES certify that John McCain meets Constitutional requirements. When I learn to use my new printer’s scan feature, I’ll post them both.

In March 2011 I spent a huge amount of time trying to determine if Oklahoma or any states, require certification of Constitutionality. I was not able to answer that question and neither was any of those I called, including Senator Jim Inhofe’s office and Governor Mary Fallin’s office – no one knew and no one called back with further information. I talked to the Washington, D.C. office of the Federal Election Commission, the Oklahoma City office of the Oklahoma Election Board, the Washington, D.C. office of the RNC (Republican National Committee), the Tulsa office of the GOP, the U.S. House Oversight Committee, The Oklahoma State Ethics Commission. Some I spoke to more than once.

Back to the Liberty Legal Foundation lawsuit. It simply asks for assurance that when a candidate certification is made, that it certifies Constitutionality – which is required, whether a U.S. state requires it or not. No names on a ballot that do not belong there. It’s a good thing.

I don’t know anything about the validity of this lawsuit. As I said, I am unsure of how the word “parents” has been judged by the courts. I’ve had “informed” opinions from many people on both sides of the issue left in comments, sometimes very heated comments. I’ve read masses about it and will keep my opinions to myself, except to ask, why was Obama not certified as Constitutionally eligible?  Find background on Van Irion here.

Commenters: if you come here and call me a ‘birther,’ offering no facts other than Obama’s online birth certificate, your comment will be deleted. If you have an argument for the way either Party certified, I’ll be interested. Don’t attack if you want your comment to stay up. Please offer information or opinions about the facts of how candidates are certified, how Obama was certified, and/or what the word “parents” means to natural-born status.

Thanks to SurfingGranny for the tip, the official twitter account manager for John Drummett

Linked by Grumpy Elder at Grumpy Opinions where you will ALWAYS find great news!

Linked by Katy Pundit in a New Year’s Eve Roundup – thanks!

Linked at Pirate’s Cove with a full Rule 5 menu and The Captain’s “Fine 15.”

Linked at the Desk of Lady Liberty – thank you!

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

  • Pingback: Debbie Wasserman Schultz DNC Sued: Certifying Candidates for Presidential Elections Under Microscope | FavStocks()

  • Pingback: Saturday Morning news picks from the Grumpy Daily | Grumpy Opinions()

  • All this crooked stuff going on.

  • Anne Knecht

    You are correct Obama is not eligible to be the POTUS. The Dems knew it and know it now but wanted this “man’ and lied, cheated, and broke the law to get him in there. Simple as that!

    • AlCum

      What’s simple is that birthers are simply wrong. Obama IS eligible and in fact is the ONLY presidential candidate in our entire history to release his birth certificate to prove it.

      • Ex Obama voter.

        Tell it to the Judge January 26, 2012

        • AlCum

          Don’t have to. It’s self-evident. He was born on US soil… Hawaii proved it, and the Constitution requires that the judge accept that. This is a moot case. Obama will be on the ballot, but will any other candidate? I haven’t seen any others post their birth certificates. If this is a requirement, why is Obama the only one being asked for it? Hint: We know why.

          • Ex Obama voter

            Tell it to the Judge January 26, 2012.

            The first hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. at the Justice Center Building located at 160 Pryor Street, Atlanta, in courtroom G40.

            • AlCum

              Thanks! I will watch for news of the dismissal when this is thrown out, as of course it must be since Obama is the first and only presidential candidate to document his natural born citizenship already. Will the judge throw all the Republicans off the ballot there now, since none of them has yet proven they were born in the US like Obama? i noticed you failed to address this most salient point… if Georgia requires proof of eligibility, then how come no one’s ever provided it but Obama?

              • Ex Obama voter


                • AlCum

                  You failed to address it again. Perhaps if you woke up … oh wait, intellectual slumber is the norm on the right.

  • Pingback: Debbie Wasserman Schultz DNC Sued: | Grumpy Opinions()

  • Pingback: New Year’s Eve Roundup 12/31/11 Palin Heating Up | Katy Pundit()

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • Pingback: The Morning Links (1/3/12 ) | From the Desk of Lady Liberty()

  • skulhedface

    After reading the supreme court ruling you sited about,+88+U.S.+162&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1 I’ve noticed this case was about womans suffrage and their right to vote as a “natural” or “naturalized” citizen and makes no mention about candidate eligibility.

  • AlCum

    The entiere premise of this phony lawsuit is a lie. Minor v Happersett does not define “natural born citizen” as only the child of two US citizens. In fact the decision notes that while such children are natural born citizens, there may be otehrs who also are but that this decision is not taking that question up. LEARN TO READ, birthers. So wonder the world laughs at you. Wong Kim Ark case settled it for all time. Even the child of illegal aliens is a natural born citizen if born on US soil.

  • skulhedface

    Well said

  • skulhedface

    Enjoy the read Maggie – this is the wong kim ark case

  • Skulhedface

    Wait….if you are an “ex Obama voter” then that means you once shared enough validity of his citizenship to vote for him lmfao

  • I love what you guys tend to be up too. This sort of clever work and coverage! Keep up the fantastic works guys I’ve you guys to our blogroll.