Mimi, you seem to be able to pull things from the most hidden corners of the web

My question: do we have anywhere the respective document of the Republican Party in respect to the McCain candidacy in HI ? Would he also have been illegible as suggested by the birfer wannabes ?

So, Obama paid Coie & Perkins $2 million and they couldn't get the Hawai'i forms straight.

If the election gets overturned we can sue the lawyers for malpractice.

Thanks for pointing this out, Top.

Oh, and by the way, Obama is still President. And will probably be re-elected in 2012 despite having been born in Canada Indonesia Equatorial Guinea Kenya.

Feb 19th, State of Hawaii. No?





*edited cuz I can't see!

"So whats your ultimate relief counceller?"

"That Barack Obama's election is quashed and..."

"But wouldn;t this mean mean that only Hawai'i's election is quashed? This rule only is in effect in hawai'i after all?"

"Well yes your honour, but..."

"And Obama did swear he was constitutionally eligible in Arisona and other places, correct?"

"Um, yes but.."

"What would the consequences for the 2008 election if Hawai'is electoral votes were removed?"

"Um... Obama still won"

"Could you speak up for the record?"

"Uh Obama still won, your honour"

"So, why are you here if the result of this case that you desire will not result in your ultimate relief?"

Some questions for you, then:

Under that state law, which you seem terribly concerned to have followed to the letter, how would you define "the appropriate official of those parties"?

If Sequoia is correct (as she seems to be) that an entire LINE was omitted (note, not a sentence, a line):


...doesn't it seem to you that the likeliest explanation for its omission is a typist's error? What sense does "...under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties by balloting..." make? None.

If it is not a typist's error, what other explanation can you provide?

It certainly couldn't be that someone connected with the creation, certification, and filing of that letter actually thought that 'Constitutionally' should be omitted for any reason?

What do you believe?

I think it's quite obvious that it was an innocent typist's transcription error, that wasn't caught at the time. Thus the wording used (or omitted) has not the remotest bearing on whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified, or whether anyone involved thought he was Constitutionally qualified. The very fact that the filing was carried through with, testifies to the fact that everyone involved had no doubts about his Constitutional qualifications. Do you disagree?

No, the Hawaii Dems did not mess up. Let's take this statute one piece at a time:




The Hawaii letter certifies that these are the candidates of a political party which has been qualified to place candidates on the Hawaiian ballot.



The DNC letter is a sworn application by the appropriate office of that party.

Who the "appropriate official" may be from one election cycle to the next may change, as that is a decision made by party leaders, not by the State of Hawaii.

who got Stern all riled up?

Amazing. Fogbowers are acting like birthers.

Neither the Certification form provided by the Hawaii Democratic Party nor that provided by the Democratic National Committee meets all of the requirements of the Hawaii Statute.

Neither contains both:


and

This is the type of person who exemplifies the saying, "strains at a gnat yet swallows a camel."

Now, I think I'll go fire up the grill to cook my tax-free steaks (that I bought on Friday at Costco).

When analyzing a statute, one should also read the entire statute for context. HRS 11-113

Note that (b) says:



This paragraph gives more meaning to what follows in (c) and makes it clear that the certification with the "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" language may be submitted by the "national party".

Which is exactly what happened.

There was no need for the state party to say the same thing.

Did you LOOK at the 2000 and 2004 forms?

Do you really think that Hawaii certification form makes sense?

Gad, I feel like I'm arguing with a birther that insists Fukino didn't say she saw the actual document.

According to Wikipedia 17 US states tax food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxe ... mary_table

Hawaii law says different. The form must contain the provisional wording like with Kerry and Gore's Hawaii OCON forms.

I am a African-American and I am not racist by any means.

Do you think that disqualifies Obama and Biden?

The statute requires an "application". The application must include two statements. There is no requirement that both statements be on the same page.

The DNC made the statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution

The state party made the statement that the candidates are duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

The 2000 and 2004 forms are irrelevant as to whether the 2008 application is complete. I looked at the statute. I looked at the statements. Yes, the Hawaii certification form makes sense as a statement made under the requirement of section (c)(1)(C), and (c)(1)(C) alone.

I find it curious that the avatar was the insignia of 'The Hawaiian Division":

http://www.25thida.org/division.html#occupation

That's a red and yellow taro leaf.

Seriously, you think that statement makes sense with the missing line?

A "national" Preference Poll and Caucus held in February in the State of Hawaii?

Verbie agrees with me.

She quoted Hawaii law.

I do not believe that you are any of the above. You certainly don't conduct yourself as intelligently as I'd expect a retired MSGT. And, I'll bet you're just as Black as Pam Barnett. (Put the name in search before you claim ignorance.)