“Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a “natural born citizen,” cannot be disregarded “by means of a popular vote of the people.”
Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, “requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures.”
“Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president … are not required to prove any eligibility.”
Kreep continued, “Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=223717
I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.
This is the part that the opposition will try to rebut:
“...the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate.”
They will try to say that since there is no controlling authority, Law — whatever(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)— that it IS up to the voters to vet the candidate(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)... or something along those lines.
Of course it’ll be BS... but they will try!
STE=Q
Wonder if the last SOTUA will have any impact???
I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.
I'm not a lawyer either, but the second sentence above seems very poorly written to me.
... to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, ...
What kind of political power is he talking about? If he is talking about elective power, of course these candidates don't have any to be stripped from them. Maybe he should refer to the power they would have had if they had won.
Or is he talking about the political power they should have to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot?
.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.
What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?
Apparently Kreep is trying to say that some non-winning candidates may have been harmed because they might have won if non-eligible candidates had been kept off the ballot. I guess he's trying to say several other things too, in the same sentence, but this needs to be spelled out more precisely.