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
I disagree with the Judge’s logic because such a function need not be specified by law. It is an inherent duty of the office.
I feel the same way regarding the manner in which no specific constitutional provision needs to be spelled out regarding the verification of eligibility.
It is an axiomatic principle that if one accepts a constitutional provision as valid, then the power to enforce it is inherent by implication.
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.
This is how people would read the law in a sane world.
And what of it? I've seen as much or more irrationality on this issue from Republicans as I have from Democrats. Most of the people with whom I argue on this issue are Republicans.
Being a Republican does not preclude someone from misunderstanding some basic fundamental ideas. We see it all the time.
And with this argument I disagree completely. The power is implied, it need not be specifically mentioned by statute.
I wonder how many other duties of the Secretary of State are not explicitly spelled out by statute, yet the power to do so is assumed and utilized?
This is just a "let this cup pass before me" decision by Judges who did not want to deal with it. They had to blame their inaction on something, and the omission of specificity in the law is as good a scapegoat as any.
Why?
I wonder how many other duties of the Secretary of State are not explicitly spelled out by statute, yet the power to do so is assumed and utilized?
If you can give some examples of them then I'll buy the claim of implied powers.
That's false logic. The issue is whether the Secretary was derelict in her duty. The assertion is that the Secretary caused an injury through negligence, not that the election results should be overturned. It is obvious that such a relief is beyond the power of a State Supreme court to grant.
The relief to be sought would have to be something which the State court could grant, such as a ruling precluding any future such occurrence of dereliction of duty. Possibly monetary damages, though I doubt they would.
The case is not moot, because the Secretary can commit the same offense again.
Moving the State legislature to enact new legislation because the Judges are mimicking the "Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil" monkeys is the wrong course of action.
Better yet to inform the Judges that their decision is nonsensical, and the best way to accomplish this is impeachment hearings.
No new laws, just better Judges.
Investigate? No need to investigate, all they have to do is note that a candidate did or did not provide proof that they are qualified.
The onus is completely on the Candidate, the Secretary has no responsibility to do any legwork whatsoever. If a candidate doesn't present acceptable credentials, they simply shouldn't get on the ballot.
We have a difference of Opinion regarding what the word "Verify" means.
Since the Secretary of state DID NOT RECEIVE a certified copy of Barack Obama's ORIGINAL birth certificate, along with an official statement and seal which has no secondary interpretation, then no, he didn't verify anything.
He simply let Hawaii slide on their usual obfuscation tactic.
We have seen how Judge after Judge has bungled this case. Now we need to appeal to a higher Judge; The American People.
If he has evidence, I wouldn't waste any of it on a court proceeding until after the public has had a chance to see it. At this point, the mucked up Legal system needs to take a back seat and let people with competence handle this issue.
What is it that you think that the judges of the Alabama Supreme Court misunderstand?
The primary concurring opinion written by Judge Bolin is a careful and detailed analysis of Alabama election law and the statutory duties of the Secretary of State.
The bottom line is that if a national party convention nominates a candidate, the Secretary of State “SHALL” certify that candidate for the Alabama ballot. There is no discretion under the law.
All the Wackjob kooks work together on this issue.
The Hawaii statute allows for the receipt of a “Certified Letter of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copy.” And that’s exactly what the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas asked for and that’s what they received.
No law in contradiction to a constitutional requirement is valid.
The Secretary of State of Arizona is not bounded by Hawaiian law. He is bounded by Constitutional law, and Arizona law, provided Arizona law does not conflict with Constitutional law.
If Hawaii (really Obama) refuses to produce the correct documents, then the Secretary has a duty to reject a candidate who has not demonstrated qualifications for office.
He shirked that duty due to unpleasant political pressure.
An analogy in common language LoL. The Alabama SoS has to go pooh pooh while he is sitting in his office. Oh crap, He can't wipe his you-know-what with TP because there is no specific written statute that says he can. Oh darn, gotta live with a crusty butt! I'm sure there are better examples or analogies where people should get the point, but this one came to mind first. ;-)
Another obvious question. Is there a statute that prevents the AL SoS from using the inherent powers of his office to investigate the obvious Constitutional qualifications of ballot candidates?
Answer: I highly doubt Alabama has a statute that prevents this.
What prevents it is ‘life expectancy’ which would be shortened if the SoS bothers little barry bastard boy.
The Secretary of State in Arizona, and every other state, can only ask the state of a person not born in Arizona to provide confirming information.
There is no state law in any state that requires candidates to present a birth certificate in order to qualify for the state ballot. There was four years between 2008 and 2012 to pass such laws, no state did.
Arizona’s election law requires candidates for president to sign a notarized statement attesting to being “a natural born citizen of the United States.”
That attestation can be challenged in court.
Barack Obama’s statement was challenged and the court ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. {Allen v. Obama}.
And who is it that decides what the constitutional requirement is? Why its JUDGES.
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
Well maybe... Orly got some wacky weed, however, in her exchange of posts, what I posted above, with Dr. CON-man we see this:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
“Kevin Davidson
March 21st, 2014 @ 1:08 pm
It looks like you have been punked again with yet another faked document."
"dr_taitz@yahoo.com
March 21st, 2014 @ 3:08 pm
no, I was not, I have both pages and other responses from SSA to this person. Wishful thinking Kevin, if you believe that this is punked, wishful thinking, but no such luck for you.”
- - - - - - - - - - -
Wuuh whuuut? You "have both pages"?? You mean Orly didn't post the other page? Again whuuuut? And you have other correspondence "from SSA to this person" Orly?
Orly you ain't holding out on us are you? You can't do that. We are the only ones [Commie FoggyBlowers and CONs] that can punk! LoL.
Hey drivel girl Jamiieeeee77777. Your posts never comes with analysis as many of you clowns who posts like you can’t do the walk and talk at the same time. You can’t explain the “why’ as you can’t explain things that makes any real sense. Butt what you can do, and as always, is post statements without logical explanation. It’s always the same drivel that lacks insight. We all know why you don’t - you know why zot Jammeeieeee77777. As the BS you throw out can get taken apart if you do you cut and paste clown.
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.