Skip to comments.CA state appeals court throws out Keyes vs. Bowen - claims SoS & electors had no duty to vet Obama
Posted on 10/26/2010 8:51:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
click here to read article
Sorry, forgot the live link:
Another corrupt “official” of the court protecting Washington crime and fraud.
The first paragraph of the decision is not only derogatory, it is patently false, I believe.
Alan Keyes has never to my knowledge made the claim that the court asserts. He has not said that Obama is not a natural born citizen. He has said from the beginning that unless we see the proof, we cannot know. Big difference.
The NEXT ADMINISTRATION will be legally responsible for providing those things to him.
Obviously if he never qualified to be President he would not qualify for the retirement benefits. Seems to me the NEXT ADMINISTRATION could deny those benefits unless/until there's proof in hand that he qualifies for them.
The kicker: “Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominees election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes.”
If it only takes a man’s word that he is eligible for President...
then why not use that same litmus for welfare, voting, drivers license, gun permit, etc...
BTW...who is dumb enough to take a politicians word anyway?
But the records won't be released until at least Tuesday afternoon. Burbank has given Miller until then to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.
"Individuals who run for office expect that their past will be researched and revealed, and therefore, lose their previously held expectations of privacy," Burbank said.
Sure wish the courts could get their requirements and ruling consistent. sheesh.
Posted: December 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.
At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first "African-American" president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of "race" relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.
Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty, has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict, embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that formally preserve its authority.
Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the president of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age. It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are, there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for the Constitution's authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern?
Ain’t that sumpthin’?
And here's the new approach that I pray gains traction. Using the "Miller" decision, that the public vetting of a Senatorial candidate outweighs his claim to privacy, then does that not apply in spades to the office of POTUS??? SO ... can an Alaskan voter file suit in Alaska to make the information public? Yes, I know it is a state court and Alaskan authorities do not control the documentation BUT ... once the Supreme Court of Alaska upholds the application of the "Miller principle" then the SecState of Alaska should have a bona fide right under Hawaiian law to request a certified copy of the long form birth certificate. Once that wall is breached, the floodgates will open.
But, this decision may be sensible, as the Congress during its 2009 Joint Session was most clearly charged as the ultimate guardian of our Constitution (see 3 USC 15):
Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines.
Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee's election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes,(emphasis added).
Too say nothing of the multiple criminal election fraud charges he should face
Courts aren't in business to answer questions you'd like to know. They are not detective agencies.
Next thing you know he’d be needing to move into that shack with his poorer brother in a Kenyan slum.
One officer of government's failure in their constitutional duties, or the failure of one group of constitutional officers, does not in any way excuse any other officer or group of officers from the discharge of their own sworn duties.
By the way, the California Secretary of State has removed at least one presidential candidate, Eldridge Cleaver, from the ballot before because he did not meet the Constitutional requirements. I believe it was in 1968.
“Another corrupt official of the court protecting Washington crime and fraud.”
During the Terror of the French Revolution, approximately 60% of captured aristocrats were executed. Approximately 80% of the Old Regime’s judiciary was executed.
Just some interesting statistics.
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.