Replies

Who, then, IS supposed to determine whether a Secretary of State properly performed her legally-required tasks?

I am by no means a legal expert, but doesn't the Constitution specify that the presidential electors are ultimately responsible for determining the elected presidential ticket's candidates' eligibility status?

I would think each state could make their own preliminary determination to find a potential candidate ineligible to be included on their ballot, so that the candidate would then have to bring suit to the SCOTUS to try to force inclusion. I also think every registered voter in a state should automatically have fast track standing to challenge the eligibility of any candidate for whom they may vote (as long as an essentially identical suit had not already been brought). This should be the means by which a citizen should be able to challenge and correct a partisan or non-performing SoS.

The eligibility horse is long out of the barn, but for what it's worth, I believe aka obama to be a criminal identity fraud and an illegitimate, treasonous anti-American usurper who by rights should be arrested, tried and put to death for high treason per the rule of law (pardons should not apply in such cases). If this were to happen it would go a long way to restoring some much needed, righteous fear in the hearts of the rest of the mostly criminal pols infesting the beltway.

In hindsight, the founders made a big mistake in not writing strict term limits into the Constitution (which is why we have so many corrupt, cowardly enablers in DC).

The courts have denied standing to state electors. It’s “not their business”.

According to the system, the only person who is harmed by an ineligible person on the ballot is the person who would have become President if the ineligible one hadn’t been on the ballot. Never mind that nobody can know that unless an election is actually conducted without them on the ballot...

It’s the “crystal ball” method of practicing law. In Iran and other sharia-controlled areas they call it “judge’s knowledge”. It’s just another way of saying rule by men, not by laws.

That’s really what is at stake with this issue and every other lawless act by this illegal regime. Until somebody actually rules that it IS our business when our government engages in criminal behavior, we are ruled by men, not by laws, and there are no guarantees of any kind.