"Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a "natural born citizen," cannot be disregarded "by means of a popular vote of the people."
Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, "requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures."
"Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president … are not required to prove any eligibility."
Kreep continued, "Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law." "
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=223717
“Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a “natural born citizen,” cannot be disregarded “by means of a popular vote of the people.”
Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, “requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures.”
“Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president … are not required to prove any eligibility.”
Kreep continued, “Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=223717
I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.
This is the part that the opposition will try to rebut:
“...the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate.”
They will try to say that since there is no controlling authority, Law — whatever(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)— that it IS up to the voters to vet the candidate(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)... or something along those lines.
Of course it’ll be BS... but they will try!
STE=Q
Aren't the courts jealous of their prerogatives? Are the courts going to take from the constitution and from themselves the power to determine the constitutional eligibility of a candidate for president and give it over to the “whims of the majority”? I hope not.
Judge Carter, in his ruling, had to bend over backwards to refute Kreep’s excellent oral argument which left Carter “undecided” at the conclusion of the hearing. I hope Kreep gets invited to present this argument to the Supremes.