Posted on 11/14/2008 12:29:37 PM PST by atlbelle44
https://services.saccourt.com/indexsearchnew/CVFLPRDetail.aspx?Details=CV|2008-80000096|keyes|01/01/2008|12/31/2008|FilingDate|Asc|
http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf
I respectfully beg to differ on a few of the points you re-posted from Publius:
“Should there be a suspicion as to Obama’s qualifications under Article II, Section 1, one representative and one senator may challenge a state’s Electoral Votes for Obama. Then the senators would return to the Senate chamber, and the House and Senate would separately debate the matter.“
Actually, there is no explicit provision in Article II, Section I that specifies this procedure. However, under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18, Congress has the power :
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Congress has established Electoral College law in support of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 and is listed as Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended). Specifically, the argument lies in Section 15.
I am agreement up to this point – Congress passed an Election Law under Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18. It provides for objections to the electoral voting process, by members of Congress. It IS a way to disqualify electoral votes, but NOT necessarily the ONLY way. Also, it does NOT address the issue of a candidate’s eligibility verification, nor does it state that Congress has the SOLE power to raise objections and/or verify eligibility.
One may INFER that is what the law means, but this has NEVER been challenged to SCOTUS on the basis on constitutionality. Therefore, it is not settled law - just because the law is on the books, does NOT make it constitutional.
This issue comes down to standing. But, in this case, it is NOT specified in the Constitution. NOR is it specified in U.S. law.
For issues not specified in the Constitution or in settled U.S. law, the 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the concept of “original intent” seem to apply.
The 9th Amendment states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The concept of “original intent” has been embraced by SCOTUS on numerous occasions when the Constitution and U.S. Law have failed to specifically address an issue. Examples include Gideon v. Wainwright (right to a court-appointed attorney), Miranda v. Arizona (rights need to be read to a suspect), United States v. Nixon (executive privilege), and Roe v. Wade (abortion – a “right to privacy” issue).
NONE of these aforementioned cases has any actual basis in the Constitution or in settled U.S. law, yet SCOTUS decided that they did – via the concept of “original intent”.
Under the concept of “original intent”, this is what I see:
1. CLEARLY, the Founding Fathers DID NOT want a non natural born citizen to be eligible as POTUS.
2. The 9th Amendment allows citizens to claim rights not enumerated in the Constitution or other U.S. law. (i.e. bringing suit to SCOTUS when others such as the Solicitor General do not bring a case forward).
3. The 10th Amendment deems that the powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it, are vested in the States or the people (in this case, the people having the right to ensure an eligible candidate).
Therefore, in absence of the current Executive Department (i.e. the Attorney General and the Solicitor General) enforcing the Constitution, nor Congress ensuring a candidate’s eligibility, ANY citizen SHOULD be allowed to demand verification.
As far as:
“Congress is a sovereign body, and in theory no court, even the US Supreme Court, has the authority to order Congress to do something.”
Although not vested with any authority or military force to enforce any of its decisions, SCOTUS DID establish the concept of “judicial review” in Marbury v. Madison and, over the last 232 years HAS become the de facto final word in the public’s mind.
If SCOTUS were to order the BC verification, Congress would go along with it – or face the wrath of the electorate in the next election.
Good point.
Memory being what it is, not really. I think it was down South, maybe Georgia. The field of debaters had been arbitrarily thinned to those with X% in poles, and he went to speak anyway, that led to the handcuffs.
I think Drake may have been the one who was originally planning to file the suit, and asked Keyes and the electors to also join the suit. I had read a post a while back that a VP candidate was going to file and was asking electors of the state to join them in the suit.
I think the thought process here may have been that since the courts have thrown out suits by ordinary citizens, they may have wanted to cover all the bases they could in this suit. Hence, the suit has both a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate and electors. Surely, if ordinary citezens don’t have standing they at least one of these three does have standing.
I remember it, well.
Sort of like RINO's
“Berg, Donofrio, Drake, Martin, Keyes — two of those were presidential or vice presidential candidates...
How many suits are pending now?”
I have heard 17 suits in 12 states.
I’m still not 100% sure the BC thing isn’t the “generate crisis” that Biden referred to.
Electors are free agents. They can vote for whoever they wish when the electoral college meets in the state capitals in December. They do not have to vote for official candidates. The House of Rep., however, could consider only official electoral-vote getters from the top three, if it were to choose a president.
The Republicans will have to designated Feb. 2 as their offical day instead of stealing from the founders’ July 4. The Democrats already have MLK Day.
One needs only to go back to a poorly designed late campaign in Illinois against Obama by party operatives using Keyes as a partisan front man to see the seeds of this current involvement of Keyes the man.
Having eliminated any serious home-grown competition, Barack was looking at an uncontested election to a position of power for which he had no qualifying resume; but, unlike Hillary’s easy acceptance into New York circles, Keyes was seen as an interloping conservative first and a black second - another bad move on the part of the stodgy, politically hideboundness that now passes for the modern conservative realities.
In a perverse way this piece of history explains how an almost perfect 50/50 mix of ebony and ivory has managed to become blacker than any pot in the pantry and why the old guard was caught with their trousers below their pasty white shinbones as the call to action sounded.
We are witnessing the spectacle of a one-man, three-legged race.
Thanks for the reference, It slipped right through what I have left of my gray hair.
How astute of you to notice.
Here are the most likely scenarios:
1. Pre-Electoral College
2. Post-Electoral College, Pre-Inauguration
3. Post-Inauguration
Per the Constitution, each Elector is technically able to cast a vote for anyone they want.
However, under the current system, 24 states have “faithless elector” laws that punish electors for NOT voting for whom they have pledged and SCOTUS has ruled these laws to be legal ... at least on the first ballot.
IMPORTANT POINT: There are 538 + 538 = 1076 possible electors (counting ONLY DEM and GOP in this exercise - there are actually many more).
Obama currently leads something like 350-188. However, if anyone’s electors are DQ’d, they are replaced with the runner-up’s electors.
1. Presumbaly, if SCOTUS DQ’d Obama prior to the Electoral College, his slate of electors would be DQ’d and replaced with the slate of the runner-up (McCain). McCain would be POTUS. (Constitution - Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 3).
SCOTUS would then have to rule if Biden’s electors (the same ones that were DQ’d for Obama) were qualified. They MIGHT do that. If so, Biden would LIKELY be VP. This MIGHT play out since POTUS and VP are voted separately and Biden is qualified to hold office (Constitution - 12th Amendment).
If not, Biden’s electors would be DQ’d (like Obama’s), his slate of electors would be DQ’d and replaced with the slate of the runner-up (Palin). Palin would be VP.
Or, SCOTUS could order a new election.
2. Presumably, if Obama was DQ’d AFTER the Electoral College, Biden would become POTUS-Elect and remain so until a qualifed POTUS could be chosen. If Jan. 20th came and went. Biden would be POTUS - at least for a while. (Constitution - 20th Amendment).
If SCOTUS ruled that the election was null and void, based upon a perpetration of a fraud, scenario #1 (above) would likely come into play.
Or a new election could be ordered.
3. If Obama was sworn in, and then DQ’d, Biden would become POTUS, at least for a while. He would then install his own VP, with Senate confirmation, of course. (Constitution - 25th Amendment).
However, if SCOTUS ruled the election null and void, scenario #1 COULD come into play again.
Or a new election could be ordered.
AND, lets NOT forget Hillary ... She MIGHT be able to get a new election ordered at any time in this process - claiming that her 14th Amendment rights were violated on the basis of fraud. She WOULD have been the DEM nominee, if not for Obama. However, I don’t think this bucket holds water.
See the first part of Post #495 concerning “faithless” electors.
It is still an issue for the Court either way.
I stand corrected on that one, but there were many, many more that offended people.
Stroke of the Pen; Law of the land; Cool.
How wonderful would it be if Alan Keyes took Obama down. Beautiful!!! Payback for the Senate race.
How great would it be if Justice Clarence Thomas took Obama down. Fantastic!!! Payback for the Saddleback comments.
A lot of black conservatives J.C. Watts, William Armstrong, Colin Powell (I know RINO) caved. Race before principals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.