Ballot Law Commission was just plain wrong

To the editor:We are appalled at the “Cook on Concord” column appearing in the Dec. 2 edition of NHBR (“Ballot Law Commission hearing was a wake-up call”, Dec. 2-15 NHBR).We were under the apparently mistaken impression that the Ballot Law Commission was instituted to preserve fairness in elections. Our opinion is that people who are not qualified should be excluded from the ballot. We believe the commission set a precedent when it disallowed the candidacy of Sal Mohammed in 2008 for essentially the same charges as we are bringing against Mr. Obama.We strongly disagree with the current findings of the commission. They, as all officials of the New Hampshire government, are governed by RSA 92:2. One cannot say that the Constitution only applies when one wants it to. We believe that, at the very least, an investigation of Mr. Obama’s eligibility should have been initiated.While we have been called a number of unpleasant names, we have NEVER been given a reasoned explanation for why Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, eligible to be elected as president.Case law, as we understand it, is always secondary to constitutional law. We have appealed the decision of the Ballot Law Commission to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor vs. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 in 1875), issued an opinion which stands today. It said that a “natural born citizen” as defined in our Constitution was a person both of whose parents held American citizenship.Yes, we realize that the case was concerned with women’s voting rights, but it is a definition, nevertheless, which is still in effect today. In the era which saw the birth of the Constitution, the prevailing wisdom was contained in Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” which used similar reasoning.In 2008 Congress resolved a similar situation with regard to the citizenship of Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama, in “Dreams of My Father,” states that his father was Kenyan, making Obama, at least in our minds, ineligible to run for the office of the presidency.With regards to comments made at the hearing by members of the public, we did not hear ANY threats being made against the commissioners while we were present at the hearing. Comments were made, but we believe that the U.S. Constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights still guarantees every citizen the right to free speech.We are raising the issue of eligibility because we believe this issue can only be raised at the state level. We would like support from all elected state officials, and we firmly believe that this is part of our constitutional duties.Finally, chapter 665:3 explicitly prohibits Ballot Law Commissioners from making political contributions.Perhaps our attorney general, Mr. Michael Delaney, should investigate the political contributions made by Commissioners French and Van Oot. Both of these commissioners appear to have filed with the Federal Election Commission affirming that they made political donations while serving as Ballot Law Commissioners.N.H. Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-ColebrookN.H. Rep. Moe Villeneuve, R-BedfordN.H. Rep. Harry Accornero, R-LaconiaN.H. Rep. Laurie Pettengill, R-Glen

Categories: Cook on Concord