Posted on 11/20/2008 3:46:28 AM PST by dascallie
Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 - for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
(Excerpt) Read more at community.marketwatch.com ...
McCain when questioned about his natural born status was honest and open about it. Provided any documents requested and Congress passed a resolution in April declaring him eligible to run for POTUS. If it turns out Obama was born in Kenya congress may have also declared him eligible but were never given that opportunity because he fraudulently claimed he was born in Hawaii.
I’m not so sure. Biden did not run for President and is therefore not eligible to be President. If Obama is considered to have committed fraud, it would go to McCain, with Biden as the VP. A fraud was perpetrated upon Biden too.
>>>How long to get the Keyes case before them?
From what I understand about the Keyes case, he is actually trying to get the California electors disqualified.
He may lose his case simply because of how he is approaching it. Are CA electors bound to vote for the winner? I don’t know... but if they are not bound, Keyes could easily see his case go up in smoke, even though he might have more standing than Berg, and even if his evidence and presentation are top notch.
I would think that the least qualified or “weakest” cases in this issue might actually have a better chance of scoring depending upon what is being asked of the courts.
Berg asked for a stayed election.... yeah right!
Martin asked to have the BC files opened up... Woopee!
Keyes asked to disqualify 50+ electors. McCain needs a lot more than that.
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO FOR THE JUGULAR!!!
But one candidate did receive the required 271 electoral votes - Obama. So the 12th Amendment does not apply.
There is a very distinct possibly that we could end up with a McCain / Biden administration. Primarily because Congress is not able to introduce new candidates for President as part of their participation in the resolution of a non-majority election. Biden would be a new candidate for President as the VP slot is handled via a separate vote.
There is no chance whatsoever of McCain winding up as either president or vice-president. McCain lost, he's out of the picture. Worst case scenario, Congress picks the President and the Senate picks the vice-president per the 20th Amendment. The Democrats control the most Congressional delegations and they also control the Senate. Most likely scenario, Biden is president and picks a vice-president.
OR.....
If the 1st place EV winner is ineligible, does it fall to the second place finisher?
OR
If we want to go with the Constitution...if Obie is invalid, then no one recieved a majority of the EVs and the election goes to the House-of-fools.
my guess, Obie produces proof of birth/citizenship or the SCOTUS punts.
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“Nay.”
“And nay. All right. Next item....”
I think there is a 50/50 chance they will take the case. Unlike Bush vs. Gore, there is tangible evidence out there that proves one side of the case. All they have to do is order the release of the document. They don't have to comment on it one way or the other. That evidence WILL see the light of day at some point in time. Eventually the truth will come out. History is a harsh judge. None of them want to be on the wrong side of that.
“So if I understand that properly, the case has about a 2% chance of moving forward. Still, it’s better than zero.”
Uh no, fortunately it is not a random selection process. The odds on this case are less than zero, if that were possible.
A birth certificate needs to be offered up to the satisfaction of the court and people.
I never heard of such trouble taken as this when all Obama has to do is make the birth certificate public.
Takes Obama all of 5 minutes to mail one priority mail to the courts I would think.
“Sorry, you need to go back and re-read the Constitution....”
Al, is that you?
It is my understanding that the entire ticket would be disqualified. Thus, McCain / Palin could still be in there.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Obama will. In a little less than 4 weeks.
“Actually, it depends on how they they rule. It could be McCain / Biden”
It IS a distinct possibility - disqualification of one member of a ticket might not disqualify the other ...
I have done a LOT of research into this recently:
The ONLY mention in U.S. Law is that electoral votes may be objected to when the votes are counted (United States Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15).
This is provided for in the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
“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.”
Every objection MUST be made in writing AND signed by AT LEAST 1 Senator AND 1 Representative.
The House and the Senate then adjourn to make a decision. Ther is NO mention on the rules for how the decision is made - but it is probably a vote.
Then, they come back and continue the electoral vote count.
HOWEVER:
NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution is this method of procedure mandated. It is a law that Congress enacted.
IF the House and the Senate vote the objection on party lines, despite clear and convincing evidence that a candidate is not qualified, there is NOTHING to prevent them from doing so.
This has NEVER been tested as to constitutionality. SCOTUS MIGHT declare this process unconstitutional under the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.
Therefore, SCOTUS would be the logical body to examine and
verify a candidate’s eligibility.
IMO, 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.
“Sorry, you need to go back and re-read the Constitution and pay special attention to how we resolve a situation where no candidate receives the required 271 electoral votes.”
Actually, the number is 270 ...
538 total votes divided by 2 = 269 ...
Majority is 270 to 268 ...
If Obama were deposed (ruled ineligible), would the drive-bys even tell us?
Still, you'd better believe that Dems in the Senate and House would throw themselves into this in a way meant to be a wrench in the gearwork.
“If citizens at birth is the same as ‘natural born.’ That seems possible. Maybe a constitutional scholar can help.”
The government has been playing fast and loose with the terms “citizen”, “citizen at birth”, citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen” for a long, long time.
They have NEVER been consistent in the language of the laws they have written.
For example:
14th Amendment - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
It just says that a person born in the United States is a “citizen”, not “natural born”, as of the date of enactment. If you were to take this literally, then every POTUS since Teddy Roosevelt would NOT have been eligible.
This NEEDS to be addressed by SCOTUS - they NEED to define the terms succinctly.
Also, in this case, they MUST clarify the issue of standing.
Granted, most citizens WOULD NOT have “traditional standing” at law to bring this case forward.
However, since the MOST fundamental document of law is involved AND there are provisions in the Constitution such as:
1st Amendment (redress of grievances)
9th Amendment (citizens hold rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution)
10th Amendment (powers NOT delegated to the United States, or otherwise prohibited, are reserved to the States or the people).
Might not the people have “special standing” when a serious constitutional issue is involved?
SCOTUS NEEDS to resolve this too.
After all, the first three words are “We, The People ...”.
The Constitution may have been signed by forty men - but they signed for us all ...
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.