....”Did you file a challenge to BO’s name being on the ballot? With whom did you file this challenge, that is, who is in charge of the elections in your state?”....
Nicy talk, talk and talk again, jbjd. And I don’t need an educator to lecture or tell what to do.
You bet,....challenged Kurt S. Browning with cc to his “boss” Rino Crist who both punted the ball out of the field like all judges likewise have done.
My wife and I each then wrote letters to all our 26 electors claiming the usurper not vetted and ineligible to be on the ballot, two of them returned as non-delivery.
So where do you go from here, except this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&feature=player_embedded
Florida has no law requiring the candidate for POTUS to be eligible for the job. It has no law requiring pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the Convention. If you had such laws, you could file criminal complaints of election fraud with the FL AG, against members of the D party who swore BO is Constitutionally qualified to get onto the ballot without ascertaining beforehand whether he is a NBC. Once BO was made the nominee, the only way to legally challenge his eligibility for POTUS was to keep his name off state ballots. And I began recommending that people file challenges in those states with laws requiring only the names of eligible candidates to be printed on the ballot, to file those challenges ASAP after the Convention.
Since FL has no such ballot eligibility laws, preventing his name from getting onto the ballot in that state was impossible.
As for ‘informing’ the Electors of your suspicions about his eligibility, well, no law requires them to vet the candidate, either. And whether any law can be enacted to tell the Electors how to elect depends on whether the section of the US Constitution telling Electors to vote for the POTUS is considered a ‘floor’ or a ‘ceiling.’ If it’s a floor then, additional requirements can be enacted. If it’s a ceiling then, nothing can be added to the general requirements of the job.