McCain Wins Ballot Access... (Judicial review allowed only *after* Electoral College votes today?)

Ballot Access News ^ | Oct. 1, 2008 | Richard Winger

[unspun]

McCAIN WINS BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not "natural-born". Judge Alsup said that McCain is "natural-born." He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.

Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.

Judge Alsup wrote, "Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course."

The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

---

[unspun]

It is time to beat the doors down of Congress.

They need to hear about this and object on the day the EC vote is to be certified.

What is that day, BTW?

[unspun]

Did McCain recuse himself on this? I hope so, because it contains a misstatement of fact, as to where John McCain was born.

If McCain put it in writing that he was born on a military base, while he was born in a hospital in Colon, Republic of Panama, he should be federally investigated for fraud, as well as BHO II.

Is that what he did? Or did not correct?

[RegulatorCountry]

It certainly appears to be the case, unspun.

[unspun]

If McCain had won the election, the dims would be filing law suits from here to Kingdom Come challenging McCain’s “qualifications” to be president based on his birth in the Republic of Panama, and the media would be leading the charge to dump McCain / Palin.

Aw, it's not like Obama'Axelrod would ever knock anyone off a balot, disqualify a candidate, or besmirch his character, or anything like that....

/s

[RegulatorCountry]

Hmmm ...

Sen. Hillary Clinton isn't giving up her current day job until her secretary of state gig is all the way in the bag.

"Sen. Clinton intends to remain in office through confirmation," said Philippe Reines, Clinton's Senate adviser.

That means the earliest Clinton could resign is Jan. 20, after a new Senate convenes and gives its approval for her to become Barack Obama's top diplomat.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/01/2008-12-01_hillary_clinton_not_giving_up_senate_job.html

[unspun]

Hmmmmm.

[Faith]

Hmmmmm indeed.

[Faith]

From the New York Daily News poll:

Are you sad that Hillary will no longer be a New York senator?
Yes. 43%
No. 57%

[ROCKLOBSTER]

MCCain was just on news saying that there are lots of qualified governors like Min Governor Paulenty (sp.) news report said HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT PALIN for PRES...

That's alright, who cares what he thinks, he's only one discredited RAT has-been.

Most of us millions of conservatives voted for Palin not McCain, she's the one who drew and continues to draw huge crowds.

He can go pound sand.

[MHGinTN]

Still at that dem false rumor milling I see.

Berg is an attorney and took a case from folks who lost loved ones on 911. He followed the case as his clients desired him to do. That doesn't make him a 'truther', agitprop.

You obamanoid agitprops really ought to update your attack points occasionally. Dosgusting sneaky obamanoids coming out of the FR woodwork. Yeah, I'm addressing you, deceit-bug. LOL

[RegulatorCountry]

Got him by the short hairs, hasn’t she?

[Gemsbok]

You said, “”I can think of several in the House, who will stand up and attempt to force the eligibility issue. I can’t think of anyone likely to do so in the Senate, though.””

Gee, where is Blagovich when you need him.........If this were a Republican issue he would be busy ‘selling’ Senators on the idea of raising the question sponsored by a private party donor.

[Gemsbok]

Star is here for two purposes:

1. To earn a paycheck from Axelrod.
2. To deflate & dissuade all efforts.

[RegulatorCountry]

Gee, where is Blagovich when you need him.........If this were a Republican issue he would be busy ‘selling’ Senators on the idea of raising the question sponsored by a private party donor.

If you think Republicans can't be "persuaded," you need look no further than Lindsey Graham's odd about-face, some years ago during the Clinton administration. I don't think it was money, though. If he'd been the screeching, crypto-progressive then that he is now, he'd never have been elected in the first place. We are talking about South Carolina, after all.

[unspun]

Cort Wrotnowski of Wrotnowski vs. Bysiewicz may be interviewed tonight, on PlainsRadio.com.

8pm CT - 10pm CT

The Lion's Den

with

Ed and Caren Hale

Guest to be announced.

Tentatively scheduled is Cort Wrotnowski

Will someone call and mention the question of federal court jurisdiction and process, posed in I.O.? Is the SCOTUS pending these cases until after the Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote (Jan. 6)? What happens then? Do at least one Senator and one Representative need to petition the Supreme Court? Will the litigants of these natural born Citizen cases be allowed to petition injunctions against the Inauguration at this point?

[Lmo56]

Will someone call and mention the question of federal court jurisdiction and process, posed in I.O.?

***

I may be dense, but what is I.O.?

[STARWISE]

~~~Constitutional help . . PING!

[supercat]

Judicial review allowed only *after* Electoral College votes and Congress certifies?

Can you think of any approach that would be cleaner than invoking the Twentieth Amendment between certification and inauguration? Any action prior to that time would allow Barack Obama to engage in brinkmanship. But after that time he could be told that he's free to delay the release of records for as long as he likes; Joe Biden can serve as Acting President until such time as Obama comes around.

[unspun]

I have posted this in other threads, so I better post it here!:

Following up further on: Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

I think it is quite clear that the difference in jurisdiction between Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Bush v. Gore is that, for Wrotnowski there are constitutional "mechanisms" in place for a "challenge" of a presidential candidate's eligibility, while in the case of the Bush v. Gore, the question had to do with the Florida Supreme Court overruling in that state's process for counting and certifying its vote (a constitutional issue bubble-up).

That is a distinction great enough for a federal judge to drive a truck through.

1. Wrotnowski: a U.S. constitutional process is already proscribed for this challenge. Jurisdiction is spelled out.

2. Bush: State Supreme Court violated their own Constitution. Jurisdiction has already been violated by a lower court (which is a classic standing for of SCOTUS case).

I do not pretend to understand what this means for the Donofrio or Wrotnowski petitions for certiorari, which apparently remain pending, nor for the Berg case.

Keep faith. Push senators and representatives to action. (Might we need at least one of each, for a brench-to-branch injunction? Again, I do not know.) Do what is necessary to inform the People.

[unspun]

I may be dense, but what is I.O.?

Well Cort Wrotnowski wasn't on, but I got in word or two. Thanks for asking.

I.O.