Posted on 12/08/2008 11:28:55 AM PST by LongIslandConservative
No. 08A469 Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Plains is working now
Now I understand. I doubt that’s the case, but I see it could happen.
Wow.
...”Thirty states Secretary of State Offices have joined together questioning the eligibility qualifications of the Democrat Party’s two nominees for the offices they seek. They, the SOSs, plan on ambushing the Electoral College.”...
proof...or link please? I am fasinated and would like to do
more research to post.
One other possibility, the democrats could have their electors default to the democrat who got the next higher number of votes.
Hillary!™
Who was advocating it? I said having a DQ occur after the inaguration would only be, whatever word the other poster used, but a Good Thing, if one *wanted* to vote from the rooftops, but added that I would just as soon avoid that if at all possible.
Clearly the framers invisioned such a possibility, that being the main reason for the second amendment. But even before the Bill of Rights was passed, Hamiliton, in Federalist No. 28 envisioned that such a thing might become necessary, even though he, as I, hoped it would not, and that Government formed by the Constitution would help to keep such from happening.:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.
We have been asked to pray for our Justice’s,Fatima.
“Two of the Catholics on the current court — Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — are abortion foes. Scalia, whose son Paul is a priest, and Thomas are sometimes seen walking together to the court after attending Mass on holy days of obligation.”
http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Antonin_Scalia.html
Sorry, no link. That was from someone who works in the California Secretary of State’s Office.
The grapevine - it is abuzzin’.
And this little bit just for you, a message from a member of the House of Representatives:
On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes. After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections. It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully, and I will act when appropriate and necessary.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
John Linder
Member of Congress
All of the cases the Supreme Court has seen so far have been denied at the lower courts level.
If just one case is ruled in favor of the plaintiff, perhaps Keyes in CA or the new WA state case, then the state will have to appeal it to SCOTUS. The Justices would be more likely to hear a case that was upheld in a lower court.
We have fallback plans!
Dear Ms. “Satin Doll”,
On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes. After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections. It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully, and I will act when appropriate and necessary.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
John Linder
Member of Congress
KEEP ON LAUGHING, Star Traveler.
Funny how they repeatably wait to decide on a Friday and don’t announce the decision until a Monday. Stall tactic?
Anybody besides me think it’s an interesting coincidence that Mr. Obama decided to vacation in Hawaii at this time?
Leo and Cort were discussing Free Repubic on plainsradio.com tonight.
They were complimentary. They said some really good viewpoints expressed here.
Just their usual 'National enquirer" type page.
thanks
Yes, however Blackstone is clearly describing English law and its development in particular and not inducing larger points of natural law. Those points after all, are deduced, as the other commentators imply. Natural law would not carry much weight (or none) with Justice Scalia, anyway.
Tucker and Bingham do an excellent job of spelling out contempraneous understanding of what "natural born Citizen" means/meant to the framers (birth both in state and by citizen father, hence Tucker's "hereditary right").
Clearly, from John Jay's request (instruction) this was a defensive measure. I.e., he wanted to plug potential allegiance holes! (Both of them.)
Pinging some ol' philosophy buffs FY-somethingerother.
SIMPLE, HUH?
One other possibility, the democrats could have their electors default to the democrat who got the next higher number of votes.
Hillary!™
***
Nope - won’t work that way ...
If Obama is DQ’d, HIS electors get DQ’d and are replaced with McCain’s electors who were NOT selected during the general election.
People confuse this point - A LOT ...
They ASSUME if Obama is DQ’d that HIS electors stay in place and can vote for another DEM ... t’ain’t so.
BUT, Like I said in my Post, this is an unlikely scenario.
The most likely scenario if Obama is DQ’d would be for the Electoral College vote to be nullified and then have the House of Representatives vote for POTUS and the Senate vote for VP. This is constitutional - 12th Amendment.
However, do NOT assume that the House will vote for a DEM because the House is controlled by DEMS - they cannot do that, constitutionally. The House can only vote from a list of eligible candidates who received Electoral votes (12th Amendment). Since Obama is DQ’d, McCain is the only one left on the list.
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.
