Posted on 12/15/2008 7:17:59 AM PST by 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.
With that in mind, Berg case holding Obama and the DNC responsible for their fraudulent behavior seems more appropriate. It just makes common sense.
But what do I know?
The Donofrio v. Wells case mentions a subsequent (but apparently not included??) petition for a writ of certiorari.
The Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case does not even refer to a petition for certiorari.
Messrs. Donofrio and Wrotnowski have for now "gone dark," but maybe they will "alert the media" as John Gielgud said to "Arthur" in the movie, tomorrow.
Maybe the major question now is, what cases for writ/injunction might the SCOTUS hear on January 9? -- from whom? -- how? -- based upon what?
Eh?
Perhaps so.
You said — “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.”
He’s definitely a 9/11 Truther..., a lot of FReepers have already found out about this one..., a long time ago... LOL... That’s what the 9/11 Truthers do, blame Bush for being involved in the plot to crash the planes into the towers...
Berg is a kook 9/11 Truther...
—
And then you said — “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”
It’s interesting that just because you don’t like the facts about Berg being a 9/11 Truther and saying Bush was involved with the 9/11 attacks — then that makes a person an “obamanoid agitprops”...
That’s one of the big problems that I can see with some of the posters on Free Republic. There’s not a willingness to address the truth of the matter — no matter what the facts are. That’s just the way it is, whether you like it or not.
So, when you don’t like the facts as presented, then someone is an “obamanoid agitprop”... Sure...
In addition, when you don’t like the fact that Bush and the Bush Administration wants nothing to do with the Obama birth certificate or his qualifications to be President — along with Cheney and McCain and Palin and the Republican Party, all wanting nothing to do with it — and the FBI and the conservative media and many of the conservatives wanting nothing to do with it — all of these facts of the situation (when brought up) — then makes someone an “obamanoid agitprop”.
Once again, those are the facts of the matter. You don’t like the fact that our own people and institutions (including the Supreme Court) and our own Republican Party and our own Administration and our own Republican Congessmen and our own media and our own conservatives — all — don’t want a thing to do with this Obama birth certificate and/or qualification issue.
But, even though you don’t like it — those *are the facts*.... and I’m stating those facts. All the people who are “railing” against this issue are simply being “kookified” — just like Berg is portrayed as a *kook* (as he has been for a long while before this issue) for taking up the court case saying that Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks on America... (what a *real kook* there... for sure...).
—
Now, what I’m saying is that the Obama issue is a dead issue at this point. What is *still* a “live issue” is to correct the system that we have so that — in the future — we don’t have this sort of thing happened again.
That’s what will take many of these people “out of the kook mode”... LOL...
Work on the future. The Obama issue is a dead horse...
“The words by the court:
“Judicial review ‘if any’ should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”
is the view most of us usually think most appropriate.
In general, we should not ask unelected judges to jump in and sort out disputes when our elected politicians have clearly set out the remedy.
In the cited case, the judge pointed out the precise elements in the remedy for the O qualification controversy.
Please see my About page.”
I did see your About page, and know you are correct. I urge all Freepers to read and take action in contacting our state Representatives and Senators.
Please check your Freepmail. :)
I am also following the Keyes case as is FreedomMarch.org.
I have not checked to see if this is true, but perhaps a Freeper in the state of Washington can verify if a Judge in Washington ordered Obama to produce his BC by January 8th to the Court. Washington Freepers???
I agree with you that it is NOT OVER!
I urge all Freepers to read the About Page of Freeper “Frog in a pot”! There is good action we Patriots can take!
The DNC/Axelrod stealth agitprops have their assignments and they’re busy little stink bombs to toss. Axelrod is known for astroturfing and this current agitprop offensive is to float a negative image of those opposing the little Marxist squirrel. At this point a rather lengthy list of agitprop names can now be compiled. But of course we will allow them to continue to expose their sycophancy.
The poster seeks to impugn Berg to the point of his current lawsuit being considered just part of the kook fringe. These posters are disgusting int heir cavalier character assassination, aimed at those bringing suits and freepers opposing their obamanoid marxist messiah.
You said — “The poster seeks to impugn Berg to the point of his current lawsuit being considered just part of the kook fringe.”
Berg is not the poster-boy for sanity... There are other examples out there, if one wants to portray someone who is sane. It doesn’t do Berg any good at all, being a Democrat, being the Clinton supporter that he is, and saying that Bush was involved in the 9/11 attack...
If this is all the help we’ve got, then we’re in trouble.....
However, you know that Berg is not the one who we should point to. There are others who are definitely more legitimate than Berg...
—
AND..., once people know that Berg is a lifelong Democrat, a Clinton supporter and says Bush is part of the 9/11 conspiracy to attack the World Trade Towers (and elsewhere, too) — they’re not going to want to be “seen” in his company.... LOL...
Oh..., and one more thing...
Did you also know that Berg said he was the legal representative for the “African Press International” in the United States... LOL...
API (or African Press International) is the outfit in Norway (I believe) saying that they report on Kenyan (and African news) and that they had a tape of Michelle Obama calling them, admitting that Obama was not a natural-born citizen (or something to that effect... :-) ...)
API kept saying that they were going to release the tapes and that it would blow away Obama’s election hopes, but they kept stalling and stalling (and have never come up with the tapes, yet). Berg is (or, at least — was) the U.S. legal representative for API, confirmed both on API website and Berg’s website (at that time).
Now, who is the “kook” here.... LOL...
Here’s the story...
API tape, African Press International, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Berg represents API, Michelle Obama tapes
October 20, 2008
Jeff Schreiber, of America’s Right blog, contacted Philip J Berg and discovered that Mr. Berg is representing API, African Press International, in regard to releasing the tape of the Michelle Obama phone call. Here is what Jeff Schreiber found out:
“I asked Philip Berg, via e-mail, whether or not he thought the API/Michelle Obama tapes were real and whether they would in fact be released within the next day or so as Chief Editor Korir maintains. His answer was simple, and firm.
“Yes,” Berg wrote.
I will say that there is more to this that I simply cannot report. Still, keep checking here for updates. In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed, and know that I am doing the same.”
See what I mean, the poster is obsessed with assassinating Phil to deflect attention from the little affirmative action poseur who is ineligible to be president.
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.