Posted on 05/08/2009 11:41:48 AM PDT by Kartographer
If the propositions do not pass, the state could find itself as much as $23 billion short of the money it needs to pay its bills over the next year, according to a new forecast by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Vote No! No! No! No! No! Yes!
Place your bets: which goes broke first? The State of California or the L.A. Times.
When in doubt, no on everything works well. 1F limits pay increases to legislators during recessions. A drop in the bucket!
Hey, I live in San Diego!
A majority of counties in Cali are actually red. It’s the major cities like San Francisco, and LA that screw the rest of us up!
Like I said keep the good parts and let the other parts go to sea. It will take quite a bit of cutting to remove the bad parts.
GOOD! The best thing that could happen to this state!!
Unions kill everything they touch!
What is the worst that means Parks parking lots gates closed? GOOD walking is good for you.
schools close? Good more home schooling and saves millions of gallons of gas busing those kids +100 miles a day means less traffic. No state police... fine by me.
these sound like good things to me.
Will Obama intervene in WA state, as well? or will he wait to see if CA capitulates?
The SEIU is now the largest union in the state of California, holding government contracts. Those contracts are the center piece of the Obama plan for socialized medicine. If anyone thinks that socialized medicine is a plan to bring healthcare to the masses, they are wrong. It is a plan to bring more jobs to union workers on the government payroll.
Just wait til they start getting those rolling electric blackouts and throw in an earthquake and riot or two .
California dreaming, Ahhhhh.
Well... that’s what happens when you elect a RINO.
I’m biting my tongue because of your remark. There are many God-fearing conservatives in California; I’m one of them!!
...if prop 13 goes, there would be chaos.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Her mind is tiffany-twisted, she got the mercedes bends
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys, that she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat.
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget
So I called up the captain,
?please bring me my wine?
He said, ?we haven?t had that spirit here since nineteen sixty nine?
And still those voices are calling from far away,
Wake you up in the middle of the night
Just to hear them say...
Welcome to the hotel california
Such a lovely place
Such a lovely face
They livin? it up at the hotel california
What a nice surprise, bring your alibis
Actually, if you read the Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877, which is the process used when confirming electoral college votes, there is no provision to challenge anything BUT the electoral college votes. The Constitution itself, however, quite clearly DEMANDS that qualifications for the office of President are presented BEFORE being allowed to assume the office of President. Here is the case, taken from the Constitution itself.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Exhibit BU. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done. There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law. The Constitution IS the law. We just need ONE of these people to stand up and do the right thing.
Kartographer: I apologize if we have hijacked your thread!
Uncle Sham: Good to hear from you again.
Thank you for your views. However, the state of the law has moved beyond the Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877 and is more clearly understood through the language of the 20th Amendment (1933) and 3 USC 15 (1949, if I recall correctly).
I disagree that 3 USC 19 applies in this instance since there was not a vacancy in both the office of the President and the Vice President (there being no suggestion Biden was not “qualified”).
I do agree with your interpretation of the 20th Amendment insofar as it can be read to place the burden of qualifying with the President elect; unfortunately, you and I may be the only ones with such a view.
It is clear electoral votes could have been challenged on Jan 8 on the basis of “irregularities”, as did the Democrats so challenge George Bush on Jan 6, 2005. Such irregularities would necessarily include instances where those votes were for a candidate who was not qualified; for instance, where the President elect was a cartoon character named Mickey Mouse.
On Jan 8, 2009 Republicans in the Congress, even just two of them, one from each chamber, had the 20th Amendment, 3 USC 15, Congressional precedence and their oaths of office to defend the Constitution. No legal theories are required, the language is clear. And yet, not one of them had the courage to act.
Notwithstanding your careful reply, I still find that unbelievable.
Remember, CA is going to become a financial ward of the Federal Government and us taxpayers soon. They are going to follow this order.
Wife and I have gone to see the Eagles each time they’ve come around since their Hell Freezes Over tour.
Always a pleasure but the venue is the Florida Panthers arena and that is about as good as playing in a cardboard box.
Things ok in N.Mexico?
As well as can be expected, better than California, better than most of the country really my house is only worth about 25% less than it was, but be have a tax and spend Governor, Mayor (Albquerque), house and senate reps add in that most of the are fledgling ‘moon bats’ except for Udall whos is a to the core foaming at the mouth ‘moon bat’, why its just the place for a red state southern boy welcome to ‘The Hotel California East’
When I was young N.Mexico, Georgia Florida and Arizona were all relatively cheap to live in. NOt any more.
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.