Pelosi, why the two Certifications of Nomination?

-Satire We can handle the truth. It seems that former Speaker of the House and Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi, might have made a mistake similar to that made by Colonel Nathan R. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) in the movie “A Few Good Men”.

---

Colonel Jessup issued two concurrent, but conflicting orders, which presumably resulted in him being tried and sent to prison. One important lesson from the movie is that no one is above the law. Another is that Demi Moore is one foxy chick. I must admit, however, that Nancy Pelosi is still a very attractive woman for her age, although for some, the enthusiastic application of cosmetics can make one look like an over-ripe tomato. But I digress. Allegedly Pelosi issued two different certifications verifying the eligibility of Barack Obama for the Presidency, which were both prepared on the same day and notarized by the same individual. The Certification of Nomination sent to the state of Hawaii mentioned the Constitutional requirement:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively 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 Certification of Nomination sent to the other 49 states did not mention the Constitutional requirement:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.. "

If this is true, it would appear that in Pelosi’s view, the Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility are optional in 49 out of 50 states or it could simply be a legal safety hatch for any future unpleasantness. One might hypothesize that Hawaii, knowing that there could be a potential Constitutional problem, demanded legal cover. One wonders, in such a scenario, if any of the other 49 state Democratic National Committee organizations knew about the different Certifications of Nomination? Perhaps Nancy had to submit the Certifications, so we could then learn what was in them. Maybe - and I'm just spit-balling here - maybe Nancy had a responsibility as a Congressional representative and according to her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Or is the oath optional too? All of the above is, of course, speculation because only a crazy racist would detect any incongruities when two different Certifications of Nomination are used. So, how did we get to where we are today? Despite all that has been written, the real theme of the 2008 Presidential race was wishful thinking. Nobody believed that Hillary Clinton would lose the Presidential primary to Barack Obama. Republicans hoped that McCain could somehow pull off a miraculous come-from-behind victory.

It was less about “change we can believe in” than “rhetoric we can deceive with”

Even now Republicans cling to the quaint notion that Obama can be defeated in 2012 “on the issues”. Unfortunately, he did not win in 2008 “on the issues”. In addition to being black and awesome, Obama won through effective voter mobilization, having powerful sponsors, having the full force of the press behind him and cleverly masking his true intentions. It was less about “change we can believe in” than “rhetoric we can deceive with”. By the summer of 2008, it was already too late to challenge Obama on his eligibility or his mysterious past without being branded a racist and ridiculed by the media. Fast forward to today and we see the same fundamentals still in play. With the exception of Donald Trump, no one of any prominence or anyone at the highest levels of the legislative and judicial branches of government has risked addressing these issues. Their fear is palpable as they nervously relegate them to the political fringe. Conceivably, Barack Obama has now positioned himself above the law or at least he is capable of significantly raising the pucker factor of our intrepid political leaders and our heroes of journalism. We may now have a major fissure in the foundation of our republic. It could represent the first step in a deliberate attempt to undermine the Constitution and replace it with something a bit more “progressive”. In such a confrontation, I, for one, do not want to rely on wishful thinking. Are we clear?