Posted on 12/31/2010 3:34:20 AM PST by RobinMasters
4) require a process that eliminates from the ballot anybody who fails to provide the documentation that proves them to be eligible.
I foresee that if this proposal became law in the future and an election official tried to keep someone off the ballot based upon your statute, that the aggrieved party would immediately filed an action in federal court and the first thing he will request will be a TRO to restrain enforcement of the statute until its constitutionality is determined. I think this will be readily granted by any based upon the current state of law on this issue. Think of the type of actions taken in the Arizona anti-illegal alien case this past summer.
I agree that states have the right to administer run presidential elections but that authority also comes with the responsibility that if there is a constitutional infringement by either the state law or the method of the election administration, the federal courts will not hesitate to step in and enforce the constitution.
One thing I do not think you understand is that lawsuits are an adversary proceeding. There at least two parties to each suit. The AG cannot represent the candidate who was not allowed on the by the actions of the state or as a result of a state law and the state or the state offical . The state is necessary party to this type of case. Your scheme has the AG on both sides of the case, a definite conflict of interest.
Oct 20th 2009 There was a “copy” received from a law firm of the Birth Certificate that Obama’s Grand Mother:
Madlyn Payne Dunham signed & submitted to Hawaiian Registrator of Birth
The Birth place: Honolulu with (1) after it for a footnote
At the bottom:
1. Birthplace : Kenya; Registered Honolulu HRS. 338-17.8 per Grandmother
The Hospital: Unknown—Kenya, Africa
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24001567/Obama-BC-GMom
(It must be a screen shot because it will not copy/paste)
This was just dismissed ....... Why??
That is part of the reason it is deliberately being kept alive.
LOL the Son is still the son of the father, and even Obama admits, the laws of Britain governed his birth. Thats on FactCheck right?
In the real world, if the election officer has a question regarding the eligibility of a candidate or if his nominating papers meet the legal requirements, that official will ask for an attorney general’s opinion regarding the issue. What I don’t understand is why no one filed a challenge to Obama’s eligibility pursuant to statutes in every state which allow for such challenges. I have been involved in a few of these type of cases over the years and the state statute typically allow for the challenge to be filed by anyone (standing is not an issue) because the challenged person is not eligible for the office. the most common reason a challenge is that an individual does not meet the residency requirements for the office. The time period for the filing of such a challenge is normally a short window of time, usually right after the primary or nominating convention.Although the majority of these challenges are filed by opposing candidates, I repeat there is no standing requirement to file the challenge if that is your concern.
I don’t care what FactCheck said or what any of these lawyers have said that bring cases up to the Supreme Court claiming Obama is a British Citizen IF you want to make that argument you better damn well show the exception to the law about out of wedlock births.
Got one?? NO, you don’t. I haven’t seen one an exception. HAVE YOU????
No British citizenship if born on US soil unless Ann went to Kenya and got married..and even then there will be questions as to the legality of the marriage because of the customary versus statutory marriage laws.
Anyone who doesn’t address these issues shows they haven’t done proper research or is intentionally ignoring the law to fit an agenda. Something the Dems are quite good at..you should want to do better than that.
As for the argument that she should have gotten an annulment...doesn’t matter. Marriage was void not voidable. There is a great reason for her to have gotten a divorce instead of an annulment.
She would have had to have claimed one or both parties lied when they got the marriage certificate -which would have screwed up Obama’s plans. Her first divorce decree was very important as shown in the documents surrounding Lolo’s immigration.
How ironic that Ann claimed in a passport application that she got married to Lolo before she was even divorced from Obama. Lolo couldn’t even remember his own wedding date when asked about it.
Marriages of convenience to suit a cover story.
“LOL the Son is still the son of the father, and even Obama admits, the laws of Britain governed his birth.”
You continue a pattern of refusing to acknowledge the law to suit your agenda.
READ THE LAW THAT APPLIED TO OBAMA
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
ESPECIALLY THIS :
(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.
If you cannot comprehend what that means..it means that a child must be legitimate but Section 23 adds a supplement to what it means to be legitimate.
To wit:
23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise
This law would not force the judiciary to take a case, but it would create a case where the parties have standing. Thus the rules that govern courts and on what grounds they can dismiss lawsuits is what would compel the courts to take the case, not the actual bill. The bill would simply create a case, which is exactly what is needed in order for eligibility to be resolved in the courts.
Where in the process to contest eligibility is somebody who is Constitutionally authorized to interpret the Constitution given the opportunity or obligation to do so? Again, the procedures we have now leave Constitutional interpretation strictly up to people who have no clue what the Constitution is about. For presidential elections where the Constitutional requirements must be met this has to be an unconsitutional process as it is right now. A state SOS is not authorized by the US Consittution to interpret the US Constitution. The courts have to be involved in at LEAST defining the NBC term.
No matter how we slice it, in order for the courts to have a case that they can use to rule on the definition of NBC, some SOS has to make a judgment call and some candidate has to file suit over it. For anything to happen a state has to allow or require a SOS to make a judgment call that will create a justiciable case. Simply “allowing” them to do so hasn’t worked because they won’t do it. There has to be a law requiring it.
Now what exactly would be Constitutionally wrong with a state making a law requiring a particular SOS judgment call if particular criteria are present? The only other option is to let the SOS in effect make their own law which is a heckuva lot less Constitutional than using state law.
It seems to me that we’re in one of those situations where we can rationalize away our very existence. A situation where no reality can be true. If that is where the Consittutional interpretations in effect now have gotten us, then we have legally rationalized ourselves into insanity.
What if the AG didn’t have to file a suit? What if the candidate him/herself just had to file a suit? Could somebody besides a candidate challenge the Constitutionality of the law, thereby forcing the courts to determine which parts of the law were unconstitutional?
Could the law be written in a way so that the parts of the law which are not challenged on Constitutional grounds would remain in effect even if other parts of the law were challenged on Constitutional grounds? American Victory, I think you said something about that and it sort of zoomed overhead at the time but now I’m more ready to process it.
IOW, could the law be written so that the gathering of documentation requirement and process would remain in effect even if somebody challenged whether it is Constitutional to exclude from the ballot somebody with only one citizen parent? Then if SCOTUS struck down the 2 citizen parent portion, just that part would just be deleted from the law. Or if SCOTUS thought there would have to be a different way to deal with possible tampering with the birth records at the DOH office that housed the BC, then that part of the law would have to be either deleted or amended to require a different way of dealing with that eventuality.
So I guess basically I’m wondering if the state passing the law would by itself force the courts to define NBC, since the bill lays out all the potential instances of Constitutional ineligibility. By striking only certain parts of the law the courts would define NBC. And then after there is a decision the court aspect would mostly be dealing with matters of fact, not matters of law.
Sorry for the length and rambling. I’m trying so hard to understand this because we’re going to need to get busy if we’re going to get something that actually resolves the current vulnerabilities before the next presidential election.
I understand the argument made by another person as to unless the states that have such requirements are also significant as to electoral votes Obama, or his enablers, could decide to just ignore those states in their goals for reelection. However even with this strategy they would be faced with much public concern as to why. In any case it is a very good idea to get as many states on board with complete vetting.
This is what doesn’t make sense to me. The legislative branch can make laws but if the executive branch wants to ignore it they bloody well can because nobody can tell them what to do? I’m sorry this sounds so crass; I should get some other work done and I’m getting cranky at my own lack of self-control to ration my time better. What I’m getting at is how we keep the executive branch accountable to following the laws if they are never specifically told they have to do certain things.
And in the case with Donofrio, where a citizen was suing the SOS for not meeting the general requirement of vetting eligibility - it was decided, IIRC, that because the law didn’t say, “SOS, you must get a copy of the BC. You must...”, that the SOS can get away with doing absolutely NOTHING to vet eligibility, which is exactly what she did when she put Roger Calero on the ballot. So nobody could hold the SOS responsible for obeying the law unless it was spelled out in explicit detail what the requirements were.
I imagine the same thing would be true for an AG, then. The AG could sit on his duffer all day long while the mob ran wild and nobody could do a darn thing about it.
Again, I’m sorry for the tone of this. I am just so frustrated by the lawlessness and by the political dances between the powers-that-be that seem to protect the “public servants” from ever having to serve the public, obey the laws, or be held accountable by anybody for doing anything.
I don't think they ever believed that Zero would be elected in the first place. He was to be put up and when he lost, the Dim party/State Run Media were going to start beating us over the head and calling us racists. And his loss was proof positive that we were.
Your theory rests upon a caveat with out which your theory fails. You are assuming that Obama Sr.’s alledged, “first marriage” was legitimate.
Were any of the man’s marriages legitimate? This being said, how does that apply to Ann? To her son? Under what circumstances.... you see a pattern here? This is all speculation is what. We do not know for certain. I will say this, if you are right, then you have done a wonderful set of well researched investigations. In reality, no one knows except Obama, and so far, he ain’t talkin.
I sense that this is about to change, one way or another, we are gonna see for sure.
It was dismissed because HRS 338-17 (8) was not in effect in 1961. RLH Chapter 57 1955 defined the laws that were in effect for the Department of Health in 1961. HRS 338 did not become law until several years later.
“Well, 49-er, we have lived through an anti-constitutional coup d’état. Whoop-ee! I fear there are going to have to be at least a punch-out or two before this is over.”
You sure have that right!
As an American Patriot once said....”Keep your powder dry!”
E.G. The DNC sends the State Democratic Committee the Party Certification of a candidate's eligibility to run for POTUS, and requests that their candidate be placed on the ballot.
The state AG has the power to deny that request. He is not required to accept the candidate's, or the DNC's, or The State Committee's word on the matter. He can demand documentary proof of the candidate's eligibility. The DNC sends the state Committee a certified copy of a Birth Certificate. AG says, "Interesting, but the candidate's father was not a citizen, therefore your candidate is denied a place on this state's ballot."
That is the point at which the lawsuits begin. Let's say the state's courts, or a Federal District Court, find for the would-be candidate. In that case, the AG could appeal to the SCOTUS. If State Supreme court and The Federal District Courtfind for the AG, then the would-be candidate would appeal up through the Supreme Court.
There are no new laws required. This power resides at the state level right now.
To force officials to do their legal duty A "Writ of Mandamus," may be issued by the appropriate court.
Note that not one lawsuit charging that State Officials failed in their duty to properly "vet" the candidate before certifying him eligible has been allowed in court. State judges have denied their jurisdiction or denied standing to the plaintiff, turning it to the Federal Courts, Federal Courts dismissing it to the Federal District Court in DC. and the Federal District Court in DC now required to either accept the case, or allow the appointment of a people's counsel. They have done neither.
As a practical matter, that absolved the Attorneys General of all 50 states of their responsibilty to properly certify candidates, as already required by state law.
Lolo was a Sukarno man. When Sukarno folded, Lolo folded financially, losing a lucrative post.
Another aspect: Stanley intimated that she found Lolo too "conformist," "bourgeois," and "establishment-minded." that's why she left him; just not Left enough?
But nobody at the state level will do it, and the people have no power to make them do it. The honor system works when you elect people with honor. Unfortunately, that’s not America. I call to witness the Donofrio and Wrotnowski lawsuits against their SOS’s who put Roger Calero on the ballot even though he clearly wasn’t born in America and didn’t have 2 US citizen parents. I call to witness the shenanigans in Ohio in the 2008 election where the SOS wouldn’t let anybody see the list of ineligible voters, and the election garbage that went on in Alaska with Murkowski.
I could go on and on. Far be it from me.... lol
And even if somebody was honorable enough to do the right thing - they’d have to fight tooth and nail. For instance, as soon as people started talking about states requiring documentation such as a birth certificate, the usual suspects immediately started saying that unless state law SPECIFICALLY authorized or even required the SOS to request a candidate’s birth certificate that SOS COULD NOT LEGALLY even ask to see it. So there will always be people who sue the pants off of anybody in government who actually tries to do what’s right.
But from what you’re saying, does that mean that if a state law was passed that required these things of the SOS, and the SOS denied a candidate placement on the ballot, that PROCEDURE (the right of a state officer to deny placement on the ballot) would be constitutional for the SOS to do, just as it would be constitutional for an AG to do?
I guess I’m asking whether you see any legal or Constitutional problem that it would cause if there was a law requiring these things. Besides being possibly redundant, do you see any problems with this?
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.