Monday, December 15, 2008

Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still "pending?" Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?

You may see this blog post, from Leo Donofrio's new hit thread, "Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, Obama has a Twin" (catchy tune, BTW).
Everyman Says:
December 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Yes, we have been betrayed by men… church-wise in the 60’s and maybe tomorrow, civil-wise by the SCOTUS;
Hell man, do you think you are any more protected from betrayal than our Saviour… take a long look at a crucifix… and remember his best friend Peter?

The only thing within your power is you… don’t betray yourself… know you are fighting the good fight and will continue to fight until you have satisfied yourself that you have done all that you can do to right the wrong… understand this…
if the case fails tomorrow that is not because you didn’t fight … if it dies tomorrow and you fail to continue to fight … you must answer to yourself and all those who have given their life to protect the constitution.

Oh you of little faith; so gifted in knowledge and talent to express your thoughts.
You have but to ask yourself have I done the best I could have done? … is there anything more I can do?
Perhaps the electoral must vote as directed in the following:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5
Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Timing is everything… you maybe the only one able to raise an “objection”

Pity-party is over.
Regardless of what they say… you and I will Know the truth …and that makes all the difference.
You will call upon your Ancestors, for at this moment, YOU are the sole reason for Their existence.

And here, from the blog, Ballot Access News, Oct. 1, 2008, is the post about the McCain court case and the ruling of Judge Alsip.
McCAIN WINS BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not "natural-born". Judge Alsup said that McCain is "natural-born." He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.

Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.

Judge Alsup wrote, "Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course."

The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

What exactly do you think is going on? The "comments" link works just fine. Was Justice Alsip (no disrespect intended, Judge) just conning here, finding an excuse to allow McCain on the ballot, while passing the buck?

Is this the view of proper procedure that the SCOTUS maintains?

21 comments:

Arlen Williams said...

This is taxing, for one not an attorney nor of a very melancholic temperament, but this page is very interesting, thank you frog. Reading...

http://www.freerepublic.com/~froginapot/

...actually, getting coffee and then reading further.

ubirevera said...

I recently came across this rulng as well and wondered the same thing. If it is true that the proper time to challenge eligibility is AFTER the electoral votes are counted in January that does not leave much time before the inauguration. PERHAPS this is one reason the President was initially inaugurated in March, so that there WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TIME TO MOUNT AND CARRY OUT A CHALLENGE TO HIS ELIGIBILITY. Some have said that we don't have a President-elect until the Electoral College meets and casts their votes, but we really don't have a President-elect until the votes are COUNTED in January.

Anonymous said...

If this is the case and I see some legal logic at work here...then what are the implications for the cases moving along the pipeline.Will Orly's cases time themselves appropriately?How is the Keyes case moving along?
Dang..it man!
Does anyone have contact with a retired federal judge that can decipher the tea leaves?
This is soooo tormenting!

Arlen Williams said...

I'm a doctor, Jim! not a federal judge! ;-`

Arlen Williams said...

Hello, to the DemocraticUnderground surfers.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Arlen Williams said...

The anonymous post that I deleted above was very badly formatted. I fixed that and here it is:

Aren't there "Laws" in the Book's that say a Citizen,"must" report if a "Crime" is going to happen?

What about the "Forged BC crime. Why isn't Barack Obama being investigated by the Illinois Bar when he "Lied" about NOT ever going by any other Names, "Also Known As" which is on the Bar Exam. Obama states in his own "Book's that he sometimes used the name, "Barry", etc. His name was changed to Barry Soetoro when his Mother was re-married to Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Barack and changed his name so he could become a Indonesian Citizen in order to go to school in Jakarta. The list goes on and on.

Perhaps he should be reported to the, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as www.ice.gov . Maybe they can check him out! How about the "REAL ID ACT
pased by Congress in 2005, http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/real_id_act.pdf

Also, was Obama's Mothera Resident of Hawaii for the "One Year" requirement to file for a COLB. Hawaii Statute 338.17.8(certificate of live birth). All I could find is that she started the Fall Semester at College in 1960. She would have to have lived in Hawaii August 04, 1960 or prior. (She most likely moved there when she started College most likely in Sept. 1960) Landlord Tax Records, etc. might be able to confirm the EXACT DATE she took "Residency" in Hawaii.

Lastly, Obama's Father was not a U.S. Citizen. International Law states that a child born will inherit the Father's Nationality and citizenship. Ending with, "Obama should have been "locked up" for lying on his Illinois Bar Exam and be charged with perjury.

PURGEQUEEN said...

My response to cheeky left-wing article
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:25 PM
To: stephanie.salter@tribstar.com
Subject: Obama citizen of the world is not eligible

Dear Stephanie,
I read your biased piece..the usual, which writes off the people
concerned with eligibility as trouble-makers having a hard time
accepting reality.Journalists of today spend about 5 minutes making a
general observation and then I'm going to slam the conspiracy
theorists. Usually these writers are very biased on the left,scorn
patriots and Constitution lovers and cannot wait to usher in the
usurper Obama even if it is a dangerous precedent and could leave this
nation wide open for foreign infiltration. That was not what the
Framers intended with the phrase Natural born citizen. It was a
firewall protection.
For example,we saw how the Kenyan relations celebrated by slitting
open animals throats and having a huge celebration after Obama
won.Later I read without substantiating that Obama might increase
immigration opportunities for Africans, (I doubt it for right now) but
the point is, as a president if he did increase immigration levels due
to his relations in his father's homeland this would be an effect of
"dual allegiance" or "dual loyalty". Lets say that he maintained
Islamic ties in Indonesia and they exerted undue influence upon him as
president and managed to assist another terrorist attack on the
mainland of the USA or even the Islamic fellow who allegedly financed
Obama's college career,same issue...allegiance.
The framers unlike today did not think it was hip to be
"international" or "multicultural" they saw what happened in Europe.It
was NOT what they wanted here.
Of couse,these dubious ties were never explored by the press there are
way too many patriots,conspiracy theorists and rednecks to bash. That
is the fashion..no?
Dr. Orly Taitz (I watched the 2.5 hour video of the press conference)
was very negative to the media and the press and made mention of the
fact that she saw today's reporting as similar to the Soviet run press
since she had escaped from communism among many other fiery
criticisms. I think you were very contemptible to cite an inaccurate
example given to you by your leftist buddy that she exorted the
reporters to explore whether or not Obama's mother was still alive.
She did exhort the press to take up investigative journalism and help
her understand why there was no funeral or publicity about Obama's
grandmother,merely a memorial service yet still no press or follow-up
on that and she marvelled aloud at the fact that the Social Security
number of Obama's mother was still in use by someone in NYC I
believe.You can explore the details yourself by actually viewing the
video.It is amazing to me how much reporters continue to practice
inaccuracy and contempt.It sickens me deeply. I buy the Globe now as
they are filling in the vacuum of investigative journalism.
Since Orly Taitz is the true patriot in this scenario maybe if we are
going to break the "Natural Citizen" clause requirement can't we at
least pick a foreigner who loves this document,our history and heritage?

Truly,
Neida Purge

Jordanes said...

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still pending?

I don't know where you got the idea that Donofrio v. Wells was still pending. They denied Donfrio's application last Monday, Dec. 8, as was reported in the news and as the Supreme Court's website says. But a few days later you post this, questioning why a case that the Supreme Court rejected is still pending?

Arlen Williams said...

Jordanes - looks like you've been caught, believing the marxstream media.

Donofrio v. Wells' application for a stay of the election (or election process) was denied. However, the case v. Ms. Wells, Sec. of State, New Jersey remains pending before the court. Maybe I will have time to post the SCOTUS site link. If anyone gets to it first, so be it!

Arlen Williams said...

PURGEQUEEN - excellent letter.

If I have the time, I may look into Stephanie Salter's coverage, post some of it in I.O. along with your letter.

Or, if you would like to, please do for yourself and send it to me: arlenwilliams//at//yahoo//dot//com.

Arlen Williams said...

I have posted this in other threads, so I better post it here!:

Following up further on: Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

I think it is quite clear that the difference in jurisdiction between Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Bush v. Gore is that, for Wrotnowski there are constitutional "mechanisms" in place for a "challenge" of a presidential candidate's eligibility, while in the case of the Bush v. Gore, the question had to do with the Florida Supreme Court overruling in that state's process for counting and certifying its vote (a constitutional issue bubble-up).

That is a distinction great enough for a federal judge to drive a truck through.

1. Wrotnowski: a U.S. constitutional process is already proscribed for this challenge. Jurisdiction is spelled out.

2. Bush: State Supreme Court violated their own Constitution. Jurisdiction has already been violated by a lower court (which is a classic standing for of SCOTUS case).

I do not pretend to understand what this means for the Donofrio or Wrotnowski petitions for certiorari, which apparently remain pending, nor for the Berg case.

Keep faith. Push senators and representatives to action. (Might we need at least one of each, for a brench-to-branch injunction? Again, I do not know.) Do what is necessary to inform the People.

Jordanes said...

If Donofrio and Wrotnowski have not yet filed petitions for certiorari, their cases cannot be said to be pending before the court. Their dockets do not show that they have filed requests for certiorari -- I can't be sure what that means, but if it means they haven't filed yet, then that means their cases are not pending, but are finished.

Arlen Williams said...

Trying to clear this up, at FreeRepublic.com, The Right Side of Life, America's Right, and at good ol' I.O. Should have done the homework earlier.

The Donofrio v. Wells case mentions a subsequent (but not included??) petition for a writ of certiorari.

The Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case does not even refer to a petition for certiorari.

Messrs. Donofrio and Wrotnowski have for now "gone dark," but maybe they will "alert the media" as John Gielgud said to "Arthur" in the movie, tomorrow.

Maybe the major question now is, what cases for writ/injunction might the SCOTUS hear on January 9? -- from whom? -- how? -- based upon what?

Eh?

Was a petition for cert. not included in the Donofrio case?

ObamaBirth said...

As I read the official document from the SCOTUS, it simply says disposition of "orders in pending cases" which is different from other announcements "certiorari denied"

Which means, the Donofrio and the Cort cases are still pending.

Do not interpret what need not be interpreted. It is not denied certiorari. The denial was for the stay in the PENDING CASES.

Arlen Williams said...

Yes, continues to need addressing....

Ted said...

EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED (READ CAREFULLY):–

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

knucklehead said...

Have no fear - the Honorable SCOTUS will defend the Constitution. They did not want to interfere with the states rights to select electors. US Code Title 3 Sec 15 permits Congress to question the candidates eligibility on Jan 8. SCOTUS is keenly aware that the issue must be resolved. They waiting to see if Congress resolves it on Jan 8. If not resolved then, SCOTUS will take a case and make a definitive eligibility ruling.

Anonymous said...

Several Senators tried very hard to confront the Freddie and Fannie failure. They were ignored.

Thousands of finance workers would had to have known about the mortgage bubble long before it burst. They said nothing.

What in the hell is going on in this country, when every voice that tries to uphold basic law and order is silenced?

We need a new, bureaucratic-free SCOTUS OF AMERICA that is overseen by American, non-government citizens. Maybe a constitutional convention is in order.

Frank said...

knucklehead, you realize that the SCOTUS will only stick it's nose into the process IF the Congress raises the question, right? Now as seeing as a majority of the Congress is one party or the other with the minority party's being lorded over that they will not bring this issue up.

Berg's case is nearly baseless with nothing to really support it except rumors, but the Wrotnowski case has a historically & factually superior base. Let's hope that they are retooling their suit to apply for after Berg's fails.

flo said...

Obama Cuts Funding To Black Colleges

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/obama_cuts_funding_to_black_colleges.htm