Posted on 03/21/2014 10:25:55 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
Today the Alabama Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, and the decision goes against plaintiffs Hugh Chapman and Virgil Goode, who were trying to force the Alabama Secretary of State to verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2102 Alabama presidential ballot. Larry Klayman was the attorney for the Appellants.
The Court’s Majority issued no written opinion, only affirming the lower court decision dismissing the case.
Majority decision to affirm, no opinion (Stuart, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise) Concurring opinion (Bolin) Concurring opinion (Bryan) Dissenting Opinion (Moore) Dissenting Opinion (Parker) Chief Justice Roy Moore issued the major dissenting opinion, and Justice Bolin issued a concurring opinion specifically addressed to Moore’s dissent. Chief Justice Moore states that under Alabama Law, Secretary of State Chapman has an affirmative duty to verify candidate eligibility. Justice Bolin agrees that candidate eligibility is an important public interest, but that Alabama statutes do not place a duty on the Secretary of State to verify it. Further Justice Bolin points out that Secretary of State Chapman is a nonjudicial officer with no subpoena power or investigative authority. Justice Bolin concludes:
Under our current structure, however, the burden of investigating a presidential candidate’s qualifications is best left – unfortunately or not – to the candidate’s political party….
As I understand his position, Justice Bolin is saying that a state statute requiring verification of eligibility for candidates for president is a desirable thing, given his belief that the federal courts are prohibited from adjudicating eligibility because of the Political Question Doctrine.
Justice Bryan also issued a concurring opinion, briefly stating his belief that legislation could be passed to allow verification of candidate eligibility.
Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion goes to the details of the Alabama statutes involved and at a brief reading has no particular high points. It is an analysis on the merits.
Chief Justice Parker also dissents from the majority opinion, supporting the analysis of Chief Justice Moore, but disagreeing on the Secretary of State’s affirmative duty to investigate candidate eligibility.
A text search of all of the opinions affirms my opinion that the Affidavit of Mike Zullo is irrelevant, being cited not onc
By law, the SSA Is suppose to fulfill the Bounel's SS-5 FOIA request in about 20 days and not stall for 5 months. Taitz and Mr Brewer did send in their FOIA to the SSA alright and not some other requested form submission. No doubt about it.
Lets again look at the OBot premise going around the Web that since Taitz sent her FOIA request to the wrong office, it is the reason why for the big delay. No hanky-panky by the Obama Administration - this is completely and utterly laughable.
I'll even grant you the silly argument that Taitz sent the FOIA to the "wrong office" because it does not matter where she sent her FOIA as long as it entered the system. There is no really "wrong office" where to send FOIAs to the SSA.
If you would have read post #103 you would have seen it right from the horses mouths or the Social Security Administration. Here it is again. Check out the bold words:
"How We Process Requests
We receive FOIA requests via the internet, or by fax, email, and U.S. mail.
Regardless of the submission method, we capture all FOIA requests in our electronic Freedom of Information Act (eFOIA) system. We scan and image all paper requests (mail, email, and fax) into eFOIA, whereas requests submitted through our internet request form go directly into eFOIA. As soon as we enter a request into the system, or a person submits an online request, eFOIA generates an acknowledgement letter. While this letter confirms for the requester our receipt of their request, it also provides a reference number specifically assigned to their case, along with a voice mailbox telephone number, the requester can call to inquire on the status of his or her request. OPD maintains a policy of responding to all calls placed to this number within one working day. "
As you can plainly see OBots, the SSA takes FOIA requests from all types of media and from any office because it will all go into a centralized computer data system called the "electronic Freedom of Information Act (eFOIA) system" whether the FOIAs come from mail, email, fax, boats, bus, trains, trucks or rocket ships.
There's more OBot. You fail to heed or read what Seizethecarp posted at post #104 as it says from the Washington Examiner's article,
"“Most transparent’ White House ever rewrote the FOIA to suppress politically sensitive docs” [ Hahaha]
"By Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner
It's Sunshine Week, so perhaps some enterprising White House reporter will ask press secretary Jay Carney why President Obama rewrote the Freedom of Information Act without telling the rest of America.
The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved "White House equities."
That phrase is nowhere to be found in the FOIA, yet the Obama White House effectively amended the law to create a new exception to justify keeping public documents locked away from the public. ..."
-end snip-
So what really happened here based on the damning info. we have is that Taitz sent in a very simple FOIA request that should have been completed in 20 days or less, but butt this wasn't sooooo simple because it came from Orly Taitz! OBOt red flags go off at the SSA. Oh Gack! The OPD at the Social Security Administration who runs their FOIA program put a stop to Taitz request, and asks for guidance from the Obama White House. You do remember the White House April 15th, 2009 memo here and at post #104 right OBot? Just checking. Val Jal " the Dragon Lady" Jarrett who is likely the one on top of these "bad Birther ops" gets the call from the ODP acting Director Daniel Callahan asking what do we do? Well of course the Obama Dragon Lady no doubt said, you don't give Taitz anything -zilch.
However, since this is in the Fed. District Court that has recently ruled in favor for Taitz because the judge likely has detected not so honest answers from this OBot Admin.
The pressure from the court has made the OPD and Jarrett to act or at least fake it where there was once an indefinite stop to Taitz's FOIA request. Here's Taitz on her website speaking to an BS'ing OBot.
- - - - - - - - - -
"dr_taitz@yahoo.com March 21st, 2014 @ 6:24 pm
no, he did not. He requested under 120 year rule. also, the FOIA was sent in October of 2013, they were supposed to respond within 20 working days and they did not respond for 5 months. Now they are saying to go to another office. They suddenly responded after I sent Brewer’s letter to Judge Hollander. PS a letter from Wiggins preceded this letter and Wiggins released records of other people, so obviously he sent to the right office "
- - - - - -
Taitz is highly and very likely correct that Judge Hollander pressure made the OPD/SSA to act but likely only in a fake appearance. So Dawn Wiggins, the Deputy Director for OPD, sends Taitz the letter that her FOIA is now being processed for a search at the OEO.
Butt don't worry your hard hearts OBots, some dishonest, appointed Obama official likely saw to it long ago to "cauterize" the Bounel SS-5 record from all the others, and hid it to stay "lost" for next 500 years in some dusty closet. Unless some hidden patriot comes forward, or a SSA worker has the case of the honest conscious, or some OBot gets sceeerrred that at some future date will be charged with obstruction of justice.
Nero/Jamieee OBOt, they have spines made of jelly because they believe that taking the correct stand and being the first, even a small one, will invite BS OBama-media ridicule (waaaaah) along with not being invited to cocktails or whatever else..so they punt. The path of least resistance.
They are afraid of the ridicule and political firestorm they would ignite in the Mass media proclaiming them to be "RACISTS" and "Idiots", especially if Hawaii produces a non-remarkable certified Birth Certificate. (Which I don't think would happen, but I can see how someone else would worry about this greatly.)
They are afraid of crying "Wolf" and been made out to be fools and laughingstocks. That has been the normal methodology directed at anyone who dares question this guy's legitimacy.
Well, if it is true that the government officials in the state of Alabama are afraid of being called racist and ridiculed, there’s not much that can be done about that until the next elections: “no guts, no glory.”
Even accepting that, it doesn't necessarily follow that enforcement lies at the state level. As I noted (Post #39, above) a Presidential candidate either meets the Constitutional qualifications or not. So a candidate can't be ineligible in Alabama, yet eligible in other states. But positing that enforcement of the Constitutional provision vests in the respective State secretaries invites inconsistent results and chaos. (And there is the obvious potential political mischief that could ensue were a Secretary in a key "swing state" or delegate-rich primary state to act to keep a particular candidate from the opposing party off that state's ballot).
While Article II is silent as to enforcement, guidance can be gained by viewing the Constitution as a whole. Relevant in that inquiry are the Supremacy Clause, Congress's impeachment powers, and the powers and duties delegated to the Congress in the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments. The better argument then is that any Article II enforcement lies with the Congress (post-election) or perhaps with We the People (pre-election) through refusal to vote for an ineligible candidate.
I would also assert that it is axiomatic that the enforcement powers of constitutional provisions automatically trump any state laws which attempt to interfere with enforcement, i.e. Record privacy laws.
Once you bring state records into consideration, the Full Faith & Credit clause also comes into play. It is axiomatic that the state which has issued a record has the ultimate say on the content and validity of that record. Hawaii had made repeated affirmations that its vital records indicate BHO II was born in Hawaii. The FF&C clause makes it hard to sustain the argument that the question should be re-considered ("enforced") upwards of 49 times at the state level.
This ruling from 2009 went to the Supreme Court of the United States which denied Cert., so it stands:
Barnett, et. al. v. Obama, et. al., U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States.
Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—removal for any reason—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
The Courts in the "Birther Litigation" collectively indicated a strong reluctance to disenfranchise 62 million voters by judicial act. That action, if it is to happen, needs to be accomplished through the only other elected federal branch of government.
Though the "one honest judge" mantra keeps the dream alive for some.
11 days to go.
Well Dingbat, you did not take the bet.
You’re still waiting for this “universe-shattering” Zullo press conference and I’m the dingbat?
OK your pansy girl Obama is speaking the truth.
So when do you think this press conference is going to happen now? Because back in March you said you were “99.99% sure” it would be by June 22.
It’ll come OBot. It all hinges on the criminal investigation that they want to wrap up.
Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. Want to make another bet? I’ll bet you $100 to FR that no criminal charges against Obama come from Arpaio’s office in the next year.
You keep reading and supporting that Marxist Dr. CON and that extremely Communist FlaggyBow. The criminal investigation is not directly about or against Obama, but the Arpaio investigation is targeting one or more on his supporting OBot flunkies.
I’ll bet you this: I’ll bet you $100 to FR that by January 1st, 2015 there will be a Sheriff Arpaio presser proving that Obama’s fake White House birf certificate is 100% fraudulent.
Hey LJ, witness that last few posts above.
that = the
How are you going to define “proving that it’s 100% fraudulent”? Because as far as I can see, your threshold of belief is different than mine. That’s why I chose criminal charges. There can’t be disagreement on whether charges have been brought versus whether a press conference has laid out a bunch of arguable evidence that convinces only the Birther Believers. But if you can come up with an objective criterion, I’ll make a bet.
It will be completely and apparently evident that even Moron OBots won’t be able to hide their lying eyes in some BS gray and dark areas. It will be indisputable proof. Nowhere for OBots to credibly hide with their make believe doubt. I’ll give you a hint as they already have this part in the bag.
Sorry, but Birthers saying what’s “completely and apparently evident” and “indisputable” is still subjective, from all I’ve seen. The sheer variety and contradictory aspects of the various Birther theories, each with their adherents saying there’s no question about this one shows that. Give me something more objective.
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.