Skip to comments.
Hawaii Elections Clerk Tim Adams Says There is No Obama Birth Certificate from Hawaii
BBCW ^
| 3 March 2012
| Bungalow Bill
Posted on 03/03/2012 7:02:42 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 561-563 next last
To: Harlan1196
See, I find this rather troublesome...
Despite its application in the court below, this Court does not believe that O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 applies in this case because the challenge at issue involves the Presidential Preference Primary, which by its terms, is an opportunity for electors "to express their preference for one person to be a candidate for nomination. "O.C.G.A.§21-2-191.
@O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (2010)
21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
@O.C.G.A. 21-2-191 (2010)
21-2-191. Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate
Doesn't it seem to you that 21-2-5 does apply since it is a federal office being sought? And wasn't a notice of candidacy filed?
401
posted on
03/08/2012 11:06:15 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
The judge does say in her decision that there is prior precedent to support her decision.
It looks to me that the plaintiffs have to do two things:
1. Resubmit their complaints after the primary when Obama is an actual candidate.
2. Find a way to properly serve Obama in accordance with Georgia law.
To: DiogenesLamp; Ray76
Once an Obot is exposed dont waste time with them.
I have mostly stopped paying attention to him.
So neither of you has the courage of your convictions to stand up to a lie?
403
posted on
03/08/2012 11:17:25 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Her decision says that the primary apportions delegates but does not elect an actual candidate.
After the primary is over and Obama is an official candidate for the general election, then the law applies.
Don’t forget though that even if the law applied, the appeal would have been dismissed because the plaintiffs did not properly serve Obama in accordance with Georgia law.
So the plaintiffs have to do two things:
1. Refile after the primary.
2. Find a way to properly serve Obama.
To: Harlan1196
I'm asking you to answer two simple questions, nothing more.
Doesn't it seem to you that 21-2-5 does apply since it is a federal office being sought?
And wasn't a notice of candidacy filed?
405
posted on
03/08/2012 11:24:16 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Why are you asking me? The judge said what the judge said.
If she was wrong then there will be grounds for appeal.
Laws are interpreted through precedence - if the question was raised before and it was determined in court that this particular law does not apply to primaries then that is how every judge in Georgia will interpret that law.
The judge cites specific prior precedence in saying that the SoS has no jurisdiction to interfere with political parties’ decisions on who they place on their primary ballots.
I think it is reasonable that it would apply but it seems Georgia case law disagrees with me.
To: Harlan1196
Why are you asking me?
Because you've indicated that to you this was a proper ruling and I want to know your reasoning on what seems a fundamental issue, that being the actual laws in question.
407
posted on
03/08/2012 11:51:52 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Harlan1196
I think it is reasonable that it would apply...See! Now that wasn't all that hard was it.
...but it seems Georgia case law disagrees with me.
Well have you looked at the case law cited to see if it actually does agree or disagree?
And something else you should consider is that there just might be case law that hasn't been cited by the Court which would overturn its decision. It's become painfully obvious that some cases are used while others are disregarded.
And no, I'm not that familiar with Georgia case law and I can't give any suggestions on where to look so don't ask.
408
posted on
03/08/2012 11:59:45 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Harlan1196
409
posted on
03/08/2012 12:21:18 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Then the obvious thing to do is to sit back and see how it plays out in court.
To: philman_36
Ah well, missed the / in </A>
411
posted on
03/08/2012 12:24:24 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Harlan1196
Then the obvious thing to do is to sit back and see how it plays out in court.But you aren't going to do that, are you?
You'll continue to play your little games on any CCP or eligibility thread that is posted.
No, I take no comfort whatsoever in your placating words.
412
posted on
03/08/2012 12:30:31 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Duke v Cleveland says the the Republican Party has the sole power to decide who they will place on their presidential primary ballot.
The appellate judge in Duke v Cleveland says that political parties have a first amendment right to choose their own candidates for primary ballots without state interference.
This is the same reasoning used to dismiss the latest cases when the judge said the SoS did not have jurisdiction.
To: philman_36
On this particular issue I will unless you bring up any issues you want to discuss. All the arguments are on the table - just a matter of the courts grinding through the appeals and deciding.
To: Harlan1196
Once again...Do you recall which law the plaintiffs were using?
415
posted on
03/08/2012 12:42:42 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Harlan1196
Not at work at the moment so dont worry.
Well, quite obviously you haven't done much work in over a month.
So which is it? Are you a liar, a cheat or both?
416
posted on
03/08/2012 12:43:22 PM PST
by
Brown Deer
(Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
To: Harlan1196
...this Court does not
believe that O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 applies in this case...
Not O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193 or O.C.G.A. §21-2-191.
Sounds like skullduggery to me.
417
posted on
03/08/2012 12:47:23 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Brown Deer
So you are actually tracking my hours? Interesting.
To: philman_36
To: philman_36
It’s not a question of courage.
The Obot has been exposed.
Time is precious. Why pay for the same ground twice?
(now if he comes out with a real whopper I might have to comment)
420
posted on
03/08/2012 12:49:29 PM PST
by
Ray76
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 561-563 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson