“Why is that hard to understand? From my perspective, The Governor is ignorant of the Federal issue involved, and places the state laws of her state in higher regard. In fact, it is not the Governor’s job to insure compliance with Article II for an Election. That job falls to each State’s election officials, who are ALSO incredibly ignorant of their responsibility in this regard. The Governor’s job *IS* to enforce the laws of their state. If according to the laws of their state they are supposed to accept whatever the bureaucracy asserts, then that’s what they will do.
All of this belies the point of why we allow the Tail of Hawaiian bureaucracy to wag the Dog of American Constitutional law!”
I know of no court in any state nor any federal court which has ruled that state officials in any state failed to uphold state or federal law with regard to Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
Constitution Party candidate Alan Keyes sued Governor Lingle and Hawaii’s Chief Elections Official, Kevin Cronin in Keyes v Lingle and made the argument that Obama’s Hawaii COLB was forged. He included an affidivit with a forensic analysis of the COLB but the Hawaii courts dismissed the lawsuit.
Leo Donofrio also made that claim in New Jersey and in Connecticut and appeals went all the way to the US Supreme Court (Donofrio v Wells (NJ) and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz (CN)). Obama eligibility attorney Gary Kreep made the same argument in California in “Keyes v Bowen” which went all the way to the US Supreme Court but was rejected.
What an Intentionally MISLEADING assertion! You are arguing that because no court has ruled they've violated the law, they must not have violated the law? This is true of EVERY criminal prior to conviction! One might so rule if the d@mned issue would ever make it INTO court!
Constitution Party candidate Alan Keyes sued Governor Lingle and Hawaii’s Chief Elections Official, Kevin Cronin in Keyes v Lingle and made the argument that Obama’s Hawaii COLB was forged. He included an affidivit with a forensic analysis of the COLB but the Hawaii courts dismissed the lawsuit.
With the faulty reasoning I see continuously emanating from the various lawyer types, I should not be surprised to find them shared by a Liberal Hawaiian judge. This does not constitute proof to me that the case has no merit, rather it is evidence that politics are at work.
A quick check on this case confirms my suspicions. First of all, it was in State Court when it should have been in Federal Court. (But I suppose you have to at least TRY to get remedy in State Court first.) Secondly, it was dismissed on a technicality, (Like every other case so far) rather than on it's merits. So you present this Lawyer Trick as proof of something? The only thing it proves in my mind is that Law Degrees ought to require an Engineering degree as a Pre-requisite so as to eliminate stupid and dishonest people from getting into the Justice System.
Leo Donofrio also made that claim in New Jersey and in Connecticut and appeals went all the way to the US Supreme Court (Donofrio v Wells (NJ) and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz (CN)). Obama eligibility attorney Gary Kreep made the same argument in California in “Keyes v Bowen” which went all the way to the US Supreme Court but was rejected.
The Fact that it couldn't get four Judges to agree to hear it doesn't make it merit-less. It sometimes takes FOREVER to finally get a case on a serious constitutional issue to be taken up by the court. McDonald v. Chicago comes to mind.
What I find highly amusing is that YOU aren't discussing the case on the merits either, but merely pointing towards courts who you expect to do your thinking for you. Lawyer types have raised the "fallacy of authority" to the level of dogmatic orthodoxy! I suppose they must wonder why other people don't want to worship their god.