Posted on 12/21/2008 8:18:02 AM PST by Calpernia
The Supremes are hiding from something that has fallen into their laps. This is a simple matter. Take care of it.The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the electoral college. They knew that above all the election must produce a president in a timely fashion even if an imperfect one. That's why they gave the job to the most political branch of the government. The Supreme Court could take years to parse out the meaning of "natural born" and whether someone qualifies. Congress will take at most a few days. The founders weren't thinking of Obama, they were thinking of the importance of having a president to national security.
If the electors had been concerned they could have voted for another candidate. If Congress is concerned they can refuse to certify the electoral college vote. If Congress becomes concerned after he is inaugurated they can impeach him. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court a role here and they know it.
It's not fair to the Court to say they are shirking a duty the Constitution gives to Congress. It only takes four justices to decide to hear this case. Which on of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas are unwilling to take this on. My bet is it is all of them.
I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from pursuing this but I don't think the Supreme Court could resolve it constitutionally even if they wanted to.
The old 17th Amendment would have prevented this from happening.I don't understand. How would the 17th amendment resolve this problem?
So who do we look to as an example of how the rule of law should be followed?I think the Supreme Court is following the letter of the Constitution. It would be judicial activism for them to take a role that isn't given to them.
I wasn't even aware that the old 17th Amendment had been replaced by a new 17th Amendment.
“The Supreme Court could take years to parse out the meaning of “natural born” and whether someone qualifies. Congress will take at most a few days. The founders weren’t thinking of Obama, they were thinking of (the importance of having a president to national security).”
I’m not going to waste time arguing with you, but you make the point here. We don’t know where Obama was born, but you can certainly bet the Chicoms do and the Russians do, and most of our enemies do. Obama’s legitimacy as president depends on his legitimacy under the Constitution.
Your argument about the time it would take for the Supreme Court to parse the meaning of natural born, especially in Obama’s case, is bogus. The wording is very clear, and if Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn’t qualify. The fact that it is a question of whether or not Obama qualifies under the Constitution or whether or not he has perpetrated a fraud upon the American people is precisely the kind of question the Supreme Court should respond to. If no one else steps up to the plate, and no one has, it is their duty to respond. They are presently derelict in their duty. This matter has nothing to do with the electorate at this point. It isn’t a question of Democracy or the will of the people, it is a question of the law.
But all of this is foolishness on the part of Obama. He could clear this up tomorrow.
I was referring to the ELIGIBLE BIRTH ISSUE with Obama.I was as well. The Constitution gives the job of certifying qualifications to Congress. If the founders had wanted a narrow and precise legal judgment they wouldn't have given the job to the most political branch of government.
Just to be clear, it is well settled law that the Court cannot remove a sitting president because the Constitution gives that job specifically to Congress. The same reasoning goes for the President elect.
As far as the Constitution is concerned there is no such thing as a candidate for the presidency. The election is about electing members of the electoral college. No one has questioned any of the electors eligibility for that office. The "candidates" are just private individuals exercising their first amendment rights to campaign for a slate of electors that may or may not vote for them in the electoral college. There is not much a federal court can do before the November election. After that the Constitution gives the job to Congress.
The bottom line is this system is well crafted to prevent the election from getting into Federal Court. If someone were to get past the first standing hurdle there are a dozen more roadblocks to come.
It's possible something could have been done in State Court but there is no Constitutional provision for recalling electoral votes. Maybe the court could sanction the electors for violating some state law but the electoral votes have been cast and the electoral college has been disbanded.
The bottom line is that these lawsuits are not going anywhere.
I mistated that. I meant to so if the 17th Amendment were non-existent the senators would have been on a shorter leash.
... if Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn’t qualify.You are absolutely right that if he was born in Kenya that he is not eligible. Whether his dual citizenship disqualifies him isn't so clear .
But the Constitutions gives the job of interpreting qualifications and eligibility to Congress. The founders intended for this process to be political and that is why the Courts don't have a role.
LOL! Yes, I mis-stated that.
Assuming the courts will not be involved in this, who has the authority to challenge the unauguration, other than Judge Roberts? Or is it a done deal already?
The “candidates” are just private individuals exercising their first amendment rights to campaign for a slate of electors that may or may not vote for them in the electoral college. There is not much a federal court can do before the November election. After that the Constitution gives the job to Congress.
::::::::::
Agreed, but FRAUD is still a crime, and the Constitutional law that governs the REQUIREMENTS to hold the office of president are very clear. This does represent a Constitutional crisis, since at some point, those that pursue this “position” should be made to prove their ELIGIBILITY per the Constitutional requirements. Those requirements were put into the Constitution for specific reasons by the founders and are not to be ignored.
If a “candidate” for those electoral votes has fraudulently espoused his eligibility, either by omission or false statement, he is in violation of Constitutional law. He should be held accountable. As you note, the Court that determines the matter of fraud, should direct the Congress to act appropriately.
And in the spirit of the law, if any hack can pretend to be ELIGIBLE to be president, without accountability, we could have anyone from anywhere in the world simply take the job, eligibility requirements unchallenged. That would be a catastrophe and I think we are looking at one now.
Assuming the courts will not be involved in this, who has the authority to challenge the unauguration, other than Judge Roberts? Or is it a done deal already?The job of swearing in the president is an honary one. If the Chief Justice isn't available then pretty much anyone else can administer the oath. The Constitution says the President has to take it. It doesn't say who should administer it. After John Kennedy was killed in Dallas they dug up a local federal judge (Sarah T. Hughes) to administer the oath to Lyndon Johnson. Mostly for political reasons. They wanted a strong public showing that the government was functioning.
IMHO Congress is the only avenue left.
Donofrio’s suit against the CT Sec/State seemed viable, but was tossed by SC; Congress has to be well aware by now of the number of suits and their nature. For any protest, then, it would take one Congressman plus l Senator , and they would have to present the case against Zero and/or ask or demand that he prove eligibility by producing the exact copy of BC?
the Court that determines the matter of fraud, should direct the Congress to act appropriately.The problem is the checks and balances built into the Constitution don't allow the courts to direct Congress to do this. Courts don't even consider cases they cannot provide remedies for. That's why all of the federal courts have declined to even hear these cases.
The system of checks and balances is well thought out. The founding fathers didn't want the courts to have this kind of power over the presidency.
Congress has to be well aware by now of the number of suits and their nature. For any protest, then, it would take one Congressman plus l Senator , and they would have to present the case against Zero and/or ask or demand that he prove eligibility by producing the exact copy of BC?Well said. This is how the Constitution is designed to handle this problem.
Note that Federal law (as opposed to the Constitution) provides a two hour limit on the time allowed for debate in Congress of an objection to the qualifications of the President Elect. See this section of the US code for more info. Here is a pointer to the whole chapter of the US code.
This whole process is designed for speed and certainty. Legal parsing is intended to take a back seat.
Without a doubt, this is a bad day for me. Tongue in gear before engaging brain; trying to type with cold fingers; etc..
unauguration=inauguration.Maybe you have a new word to describe what is going to happen.
Haha. Let’s hope that it’s prophetic.
Two hours limit to make this convoluted case...but then, I wouldn't bet on any rep. taking this on.
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.