Also, it seems to me that you are saying that both Mickey Mouse and Osama Bin Laden would have to go on the WAshington ballot as long as there are democrats willing to say he’s their candidate. Is that correct?
If so, how does that fit with the idea that if the Constitution put in a requirement it is to be assumed that there is also within the Constitution a way for that requirement to be met? If the Constitution requires a Presidential candidate to be put on a state ballot that MUST BE administered by the states, whose officers swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution, then there has to be a way for the states to uphold that Constitution’s Presidential requirements. IIRC, that is one of the points made by the Congressional Research Service.
Are you calling the CSR attorneys liars or idiots (or just mistaken)?
Apparently this judge, the Washington Supreme Court, the AG and his attorneys, and the WA SOS all are. How about you go down on the record as saying whether you believe the CSR attorneys are wrong on this - and that Congress has been silent on this issue (and poo-poohing their constituents’ concerns for 4 years) because they trusted bad legal counsel?
BTW, the memo that Congress was given by the CRS is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions . It basically says that the state’s ability to administer its own elections is a given; the ability of Congress to challenge Presidential eligibility is not so clear. It is a matter of interpretation of state law as to whether the SOS has discretion to challenge even sworn statements and documents if presented with probative evidence that the claims are false or questionable.
It is clear that Washington law allows that. Any person who presents an affidavit has standing to challenge placement on the ballot. The judge acknowledged that. He exempted Presidential elections even though the statute does not exempt Presidential elections, and he does so on a supposed Constitutional basis that the CRS attorneys do not find to be present in the Constitution. In fact, they say the discretion to question Presidential eligibility depends specifically on what STATE LAW says, not what the Constitution says because the Constitution leaves the administration of elections to the states. IOW, this CRS memo totally contradicts what this judge is claiming.
I should add two things regarding the CRS’s statement that states may allow the SOS discretion to question sworn statements of eligibility when probative evidence to challenge that is presented:
1. When the WA SOS began printing the ballots there was no statement - sworn or otherwise - that Obama was qualified, even though WA filing statutes require that the filer be qualified.
2. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is conducting a criminal investigation of forgery and fraud because there is “probable cause” that those crimes occured. IOW, there is probative evidence. Law enforcement has legal standards for what constitutes probable cause. This judge can sneer at Arpaio, but to write off probable cause is a serious injustice that indicates a mindset AGAINST evidence and due process. Serious doo-doo with that guy.