It was small, but do you remember this SCOTUS vigil on December 5, 2008?
How about a humongous one this time?!
If the GOP can come up with a winning candidate and not eat itself totally up, perhaps revenge is best served cold. Wait till the new president is installed, hopefully with substantial congressional coattails. Then land on Barack Obama with all fours for the fraud.
I don’t think the Supremes will touch it. They are still smarting about their minor intervention when the Florida Supreme Court tried to rewrite their own laws AFTER the election to favor Gore.
This would be a thousand times worse.
Justices aren’t back from vacation until first part of October. Why would they agree on this one after turning down all the others?
” - - - a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes against California election officials who did not check whether Obama was eligibile. - - - “
Keyes is a very smart man, even smarter than Trump. I’d love to watch how THE NINE SUPREMES decide this one.
BTW, if Obama is declared an alien, will all of the legislation he signed be considered null and void ?
Pansies....the whole lot of them.
They knew going in.
When the economy collapses, they won’t have salaries, right?
I was just thinking (and that is dangerous), but isn’t the Supreme Court on recess until Oct?
And isn’t Kreep the same one that is fighting against Taitz?
Something is just not right about this.
Ping
SCOTUS ping.
(Anyone on/off, freepmail me.)
The SCOTUS,FBI,CIA, NSA, etc. have happily supported this TREASON from day one. There’s nothing these folks don’t know if they want to. So, take it from there. They’re complicit.
Ping
It was small, but do you remember this SCOTUS vigil on December 5, 2008?
How about a humongous one this time?!
Unfortunately, I don’t think throwing Zero out of office will automatically void all of his official acts. I think those acts would still be valid under the “de facto officer” doctrine.
The US Supreme Court has cited the following description of the “de facto officer” doctrine (Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 (1888)):
“An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid, so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office are exercised:
...Under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public.”
I know some here will argue that Zero’s “ineligibity” is in fact “known to the public” but I disagree. Many in the public suspect him of not being a natural born citizen, including me, and a minority of the public believe he is not a natural born citizen either because his father was a foreigner or because they believe Zero was born outside the US, but when we speak of the public at large most people would say they either he is NBC or they are not sure or don’t bother them because they are busy watching “Dancing with the Stars”.
Keyes v Bowen;
Background
Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate against Secretary of State Bowen, President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and the Electors on November 13, 2008, and filed an amended petition on February 23, 2009.
According to plaintiffs, the voters have an expectation that compliance with the minimum qualifications for office will be confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. The gravamen of their action is there is a reasonable doubt President Obama is a natural born citizen, as is required to become President of the United States (U.S. Const., art. II, § 1), and the Secretary of State had a ministerial duty to verify that President Obama met the constitutional qualifications for office before certifying him for inclusion on the ballot.
Plaintiffs also alleged that the Electors had an affirmative duty to discover whether the presidential candidate was a natural born citizen, since they were required to vote for the President “in the manner directed by the Constitution” (3 U.S.C. § 8), and that one of the persons nominated as an elector, “Ilene Huber,” died on October 22, 2001, and a woman by the name of “Ilene Haber” was permitted to vote in place of Ms. Huber, without being elected to take her place as required by the Elections Code.
Plaintiffs asked the trial court to issue a writ of mandate barring the Secretary of State from certifying the names of the Electors and from transmitting to each elector a certificate of election until documentary proof was produced and verified showing that any future presidential candidate is qualified to serve as President of the United States. Plaintiffs also asked the court to bar “future California Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that any future Presidential candidate is qualified to serve as President of the United States.” In addition, plaintiffs sought to bar the Electors from signing the Certificate of Vote unless they complied with the Elections Code requirements concerning replacing absent electors.
Secretary of State Bowen demurred on the grounds that (1) the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against her because she did not have a ministerial duty to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates; (2) the petition was moot given that the election had been held; (3) the controversy was not ripe as to future elections; (4) whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office was a matter committed to Congress and the federal courts; and (5) the alleged substitution of Ilene Haber for the deceased Ilene Huber merely represented a typographical error.
President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and the Electors demurred on the grounds that (1) the petition did not allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action as they had no ministerial duty to provide to the Secretary of State, or verify proof of, qualifications to hold office, (2) the petition did not seek any relief against the President or Vice-President, (3) the state court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, which was governed by federal law and required objections to presidential qualifications to be lodged with Congress, (4) the petition was moot, and (5) to the extent that the petition sought relief as to future elections, it suffered from a misjoinder of parties because the court could not know who the candidates or electors would be in the future.
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court sustained both demurrers, ruling the Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws are enforced, but plaintiffs had not identified a state election law imposing a ministerial duty to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates.
The court dispensed with the claim concerning California Elector “Ilene Huber” by taking judicial notice of a document showing that the name had been a typographical error and that “Ilene Haber” was the actual elector, not an improper replacement.
The court sustained the demurrer of the President and Vice-President, noting the petition did not seek any relief against them and did not identify any ministerial duty on their part that they failed to perform and, thus, failed to state a cause of action as to them.
Similarly, the court ruled plaintiffs failed to identify any ministerial duty the Electors failed to perform. The requirement they vote “in the manner directed by the Constitution” merely refers to the mechanics of casting votes, found in the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Electors did not have an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate was a natural born citizen and, in fact, were required by statute to vote for their party’s nominee.
The court also found the petition was moot as to all parties with respect to the 2008 General Election because the Electoral College had voted and Mr. Obama had been inaugurated as President of the United States. It was not ripe as to future elections because the issues were not framed with sufficient concreteness and immediacy to allow the court to render a conclusive and definitive judgment rather than an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events.
And the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the subject of the action in that federal law establishes election procedures and the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice-President. The appropriate procedure was an action before the United States Congress.
Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 United States Code section 15. In the trial court’s words, plaintiffs’”belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.”
Has anyone else noticed how WND headlines often slip into the passive tense to make a non-story seem more important?