Posted on 11/10/2008 6:30:13 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Reader Jason wrote to Electoral college requesting Obama's birth certificate records be released. Jason wrote, "I emailed the Electoral College and submitted all the information from the We The People petition and ad- so they can be aware of their duty before electing this man into what will be our utmost undoing."
They answered and punked out.
The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.
Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate's name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state's top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.
Under federal law an objection to a state's electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress's counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.
Legal Affairs and Policy Staff Office of the Federal Register
The President of the Senate is Robert Byrd - good luck with that!
UPDATE: Slim guy advises: The people to contact are your party representatives at the state level. The leadership of your state Senate and House of your party and the Office of the Governor and Sec of State and possibly the AG. Methods of appointment of electors vary from state to state and also just how much control the government has over them once they are appointed. A little homework needed on your part to determine the best course of action in your case.
UPDATE: My bad... The current President pro tempore of the Senate is Robert Byrd --
According to wikipedia, Roark is right - the U.S. Constitution states the Vice President of the United States serves as President of the Senate, and is the highest-ranking official of the Senate even though he only votes in the case of a tie. CHENEY! How very Rovian .... talk about going out with a bang :)
Electors are not the last word. CONGRESS is. Will it violate the Constitution? If history is any evidence, of course it will. What do we do about it? THAT is the real question.
I understand it like the back of my hand. It is you who is confusing method and requirements.
Senators and congressmen have methods to be elected as well. That does not mean that they can skirt the constitutional requirements of age and citizenship, REGARDLESS of how a state’s population votes.
You nailed it...and the pop culture obsessed electorate doesnt care to be bothered with the details....
I am not sure what you mean about the “governor” certifies which votes are counted.
Nor do I understand your last sentence. Who would remove Zero if the House elects him?
There is no confusion in saying that the place this is adjudicated as per the constitution is Congress.
As I have already informed you NO other election is comparable to that of the President what is so hard to grasp about that?
ROFL. Whatever you say, ace.
Because both parties have set the goal for globalization. Obama is the globalist candidate, and the parties are following their orders.
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
US Supreme Court case > NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” STATUS NOW BEFORE SUPREME COURT - ST
2 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Nov.10.2008 @ 7:40 am | Lasted edited: Nov.10.2008 @ 12:22 pm
NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” STATUS NOW BEFORE US SUPREME COURT - DONOFRIO v. WELLS - STANDING NOT CHALLENGED IN LOWER COURTS - OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOT MAIN ISSUE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Docket #: 08A407
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Application for Emergency Stay and supporting brief: ScotusStayAppBrief.doc
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ORDER
On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.
Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason. (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of “standing”, but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.
While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn’t rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core Constitutional dilemma. Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey. The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.
The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.
The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President. These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.
Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.
Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test. The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.
The action was brought as a “Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs” (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ. An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief. The Appellate Division case generated the following documents:
NJ Appellate Division Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief
Judge Sabatino’s initial response
Supplemental Fact Sheet Upon Application For Emergent Relief
Fax letter to all parties regarding schedule for submitting briefs
Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs
Letter to Judge Sabatino re: Motion for Summary Judgment
Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment, Counts 1and 2
NJ Attorney General’s reply brief for Secretary of State Wells
Judge Sabatino’s Opinion and Order, 5 pages
Plaintiff then submitted the case on an emergency basis to the New Jersey Supreme Court where a staff attorney reviewed it, requested 10 copies each of the Motion and 75 page appendix, and informed Plaintiff that a Supreme Court Justice would review it immediately with three possible scenarios unfolding:
- the Supreme Court Justice could grant the application on their own
- the Supreme Court Justice could deny the application on their own
- the Supreme Court Justice could call in the other Justices to review the case
Later that afternoon, Plaintiff was informed by telephone that his papers were in order and that other Justices of the Supreme Court had been brought in to discuss the case.
Regardless, later that afternoon, the application for emergency relief was denied.
However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court’s five page opinion – such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented – and relied upon “Movant’s Papers” which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.
Here is the decision of the Honorable Justice Virginia A. Long:
“This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant’s papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied.”
This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review. Since “Movant’s papers” are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.
Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the “national election”. Plaintiff’s terminology is of vital importance here. Plaintiff’s use of the term “national election” includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the electoral college process.
Justice Suoter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama’s landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008. However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket.
It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as “pending” on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make any such full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction. But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application.
Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to resubmit the Application for an Emergency Stay to another Justice of his choice along with a supplemental letter to accompany the original Stay application. Justice Suoter had right of first review because he is charged with review of 3rd Circuit actions, and New Jersey is in the 3rd Circuit.
But now that Justice Suoter has denied the emergency stay with prejudice, Plaintiff may resubmit the Application For An Emergency Stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to the Honorable US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Furthermore, all nine Justices will be served on this round, according to Rule 22 which requires Appellant to submit 10 copies of the original Stay application for the entire Supreme Court.
A supplemental letter detailing the unorthodox procedural history involved with this case is being prepared for Justice Thomas to review along with the prior Stay application. This letter will be available at this site before it is actually submitted to the SCOTUS.
Instead of making a full Petition for Certiorari, plaintiff-appellant, as to his Emergency Stay Application, relied on the procedural history in Bush v. Gore, wherein Bush also chose to fore go a full Petition for Cert., and instead relied exclusively on an emergency Stay application handed to one Justice who then empaneled the entire court. The Supreme Court then granted the Stay, treated the Stay application as a full Petition for Certiorari and granted that Petition despite the fact that Bush only submitted the one Application for Emergency Stay. That was done because the urgency of the situation begged resolve of the national Presidential election. The same conditions apply here as the clock is ticking down to December 15th, the day for the Electoral College to meet.
The bi-partisan case progressed quietly through the lower courts with no publicity as the plaintiff-appellant sought to respect court authority seeking only to have the “natural born issue” determined once and for all. He didn’t create a web site or request donations. The suit is self financed.
However, due to some very unorthodox treatment of the case in the NJ Appellate Division, and also by the US Supreme Court Clerk’s office, a press conference is now being prepared to coincide with the resubmission of the Stay application to Justice Clarence Thomas.
More to follow. Developing.
It’s called a non-military coup.
Need more votes? acorn manufactures them.
Need more millions? phone Mid-East interests, or call soros.
Mac/Palin ahead in polls? tank economy
Need to ensure permanent Socialistic/Communistic Control? Destroy 1st & 2nd Amendments, expand Acorn, & annex 1/3 of Mex population.
Game (USA) over.
Steps #1, 2, and 3 are pretty much in the bag.
From 3 U.S.C. 15:
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
I assume the governor is the executive of the State — possibly the State Secretary of State though.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
This election has me ill. I am terrified for the future of our great Country. Time to Freep the electoral college and if that doesnt work, we will do a nationwide protest. The clock is ticking.
For more information on the Electoral College and the election responsibilities of the States and the Archivist of the United States, contact the Office of the Federal Register:
Telephone: 202-741-6030
E-mail: electoral_college@nara.gov
General Inquiries: 202-741-6000
E-mail: fedreg.info@nara.gov
Mailing Address
Office of the Federal Register (NF)
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Office Location
We are located three blocks north of the Union Station Metro stop
800 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001
#
Shirley Chisholm may have got one...whoops I was wrong- it was Theodora Nathan, 1972: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1965_1969.html#1972
You are right, but might makes right in this country, and Obama has all the might. Republicans will do nothing.
The courts say otherwise. The other examples you gave are things that supposedly happen directly to an individual, which is quite different.
Considering he requested SS service earlier than any other candidate... He used a ton of our money.
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.