Posted on 02/05/2011 9:47:46 AM PST by jamese777
The California Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a challenge to Barack Obama’s election as president.
The justices, at their weekly conference in San Francisco, voted 6-0 not to review an October ruling by the the Third District Court of Appeals. That court threw out a lawsuit by so-called “birthers” who claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to hold office.
The court ruled that California law does not impose a ministerial duty on the secretary of state or members of the Electoral College to verify a presidential candidate’s eligibility.
Retired Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland, sitting by assignment, said it is up to the political parties and Congress, which must canvass the electoral votes of the several states in December of every presidential election year, to determine the qualifications of the candidates.
A judge in Sacramento previously rejected arguments by conservative activists Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson that there was “a triable issue of material fact as to which branch of government, and what office within that branch, has the duty to ensure that all candidates on a California ballot meet the eligibility requirements to hold office.”
(Excerpt) Read more at metnews.com ...
Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes
Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates
Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1D6kByNND
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=259901
Although this is the Left Coast, I suspect that this is an honest ruling. The laws in most states only require the Secretary of State be given a Certification by the Democrat and Republican officials that their candidates meet the requirements of state and federal law.
That is why we need these laws amended to require an Original Birth Certificate to qualify for the ballot in Presidential elections.
"Not my job."
And what happens if the political parties, or congress, behave in a partisan manner? Or even in a corrupt manner? What then? The courts just shrug?
“The court ruled that California law does not impose a ministerial duty on the secretary of state or members of the Electoral College to verify a presidential candidate’s eligibility.”
Why would a state surrender an important power like this to the feds??
A Pontius Pilate decision.
Shakespeare was on to something.
At the heart they are all still lawyers, just once removed from chasing ambulances and screwing old widows out of their departed husband’s retirement.
I guess it’s above his pay grade.
“The court ruled that California law does not impose a ministerial duty on the secretary of state or members of the Electoral College to verify a presidential candidate’s eligibility.”
Then somebody better Soros, ‘cause he’s gone to an AWFUL lot of trouble and expense......
“A group backed by Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field.”
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries
“Then somebody better TELL Soros...”
(sorry...)
Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes
Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates
Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1D6kByNND
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=259901
Maybe I’m missing something here, but if that is the case...
why can’t the Democratic Party be named in the/a suit regarding proof of eligibility?
Maybe we’ve be going after this all wrong...
maybe we need to be going after Pelosi and friends.
Maybe it is time to have a few cougars go after their party...
Art Scotland, apparently another Sacramento RINO, Mr. 70’s sensitive guy who always avoids controversy.
Certifications submitted to the SOS ...are not those documents then part of the public record? And if the filing is only a “statement” and the statement presented was false...
I've thought so all along.
At the heart they are all still lawyers, just once removed from chasing ambulances and screwing old widows out of their departed husband’s retirement
Certifications submitted to the SOS ...are not those documents then part of the public record? And if the filing is only a “statement” and the statement presented was false..
I am not a birther, but it seems crazy to me that a state has no jurisdiction in verifying a presidential candidate’s qualifications for office, since states manage all elections and the determination of electoral college voters is made by state law.
It should be a given that a candidate for president should prove he or she is 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States before being put on a ballot.
It is nuts that a normal citizen has to go through a more onerous process of proving his identity to get a passport or a social security card than a candidate for president.
What if a citizen was 30 years old instead of 35 and lied about his age? Are the states just going to sit back and accept it and say it is a federal responsibility to prove age when birth certificates are processed by the state?
Once again, the courts bend over backwards to not rule on the issue.
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.