Posted on 11/19/2008 12:52:10 PM PST by pissant
November 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Sacramento Supreme Court petition filed on behalf of Alan Keyes and others has asked the Secretary of State to withhold the state's 55 electoral votes from the December Electoral College tally until President-Elect Barack Obama proves he is eligible to take office.
The court document joins a host of litigation questioning Obama's eligibility in as many as 15 states, with confirmed cases in Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii, and unconfirmed reports from Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia, according to World Net Daily.
All the cases reported to have failed were dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, without the court actually investigating the complaint.
However, as Keyes was on the November ballot as the American Independent Party presidential candidate, his is the first case in which the plaintiff is a candidate who lost the presidency, perhaps illegitimately, to Obama. This may mean that Keyes' case will be the first in which the plaintiff is deemed to have sufficient standing, leading the court to investigate the complaint instead of dismissing it.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," Keyes wrote to the Sacramento Supreme Court.
"An unprecedented and looming constitutional crisis awaits if a President elected by the popular vote and the electoral vote does not constitutionally qualify to serve in that capacity," the court document continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Nevertheless, the more publicity about these suits, the better for the cause - as long as the coverage is accurate, as this article appears to be.
Isn’t it also true that if Obama was unqualified for the presidency by virtue of not being a native-born American, then the electors assigned him were assigned under a fraud. I would think that all those electors would be disqualified. I’ve have seen no posts challenging the electors involved in a fraudulent scheme. It doesn’t make sense that they should then have carte blanche to vote for whomever if their election was based on a fraud. Is there some precedent?
I keep a few “bricks” of standing in a special room at my house...
Kevin James on 870 AM will be talking about the case before SCOTUS this hour. He said it’s not going to go anywhere, but he would talk about it.
He’s on from 9-11 PM
No, they can vote for any eligible citizen of the U.S. Its been done several times before., most recently in 1960. Votes were cast for Sen. Byrd in Mississippi and Virginia, even though only Nixon and Kennedy were candidates.
Many here assume that the Electoral College was set up for a two party system. It was not. If 3 or 4 candidates ran and no one received the majority of the votes, the EC can pick from them and elect their choice.
Well, that was a bummer. Just said it’s not going anywhere and Obama will be sworn in.
Didn’t even discuss the merits of the case. And he’s an ex Federal prosecutor.
The original Constitution did not provide for a popular election. Electors to the Electoral College were appointed by the States. Many states permitted the people to make the selection by popular vote but were not required to do so.
Additionally, Senators were also selected by state legislators until the 17th Amendment in 1913. The diminution of states rights and federal government expansion can be traced back to the 17th Amendment.
bumpa
Myself, I don’t know. I was responding to #69.
Aw, c’mon. Think about it. After Obama green-lighted the operation, who are the people most likely to have been directly involved in (1) creating the forged source image, (2) copying and distributing the copies the forged image, (3) creating the forged COLB objects for the source photographs, (4) taking the source photographs and Photoshopping them, (5) producing and distributing the press releases, (6) handling the cover-up activities, and lastly, (7) bankrolling this entire operation?
Sorta like the Democrats voting for their delegates in their primaries, trouble was some of these delegates then got their arms twisted (and their campaign funds topped up) to make them switch to Obama despite their voters' preference. I believe Electoral College folks can in fact vote any way they want, no?
Well, I gave you cites for as recently as 1960. Give me a cite or two that says the EC must votes a certain way and I will believe you. Otherwise the way things used to be are the way things are today.
It doesn’t matter that technically, the members in the electoral college might toss the votes in the opposite direction of the intent of the voters.
What matters is, when is the last time that a group of electoral college members from any state voted for someone completely different from what the voters of the state intended?
So, yeah, the possibility of the electoral college voting opposite of the voters intent is there. But, when is the last time it happened?
If something like that is tried in current times, and with everybody shouting “disenfranchisement” about the slightest election “infraction” in today’s world, I doubt that one set of electoral college members from any state could get away with voting opposite of what the state’s voters intended. There would be chaos and rioting.
1960 Nixon v. Kennedy - two States. That is not that long ago.
Like I said, when is the last time that it happened? Then, you state that it happened almost half a century ago. Not very recently, was it?
Like I said, with so many people screaming “disenfranchisement” at the most minor of voting irregularity, the electoral college members wouldn’t get away with giving their votes to the candidate of their choice which might be opposite of the regular voters’ intent in the general election.
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.