Category Archives: Electors

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

Posted on January 8, 2016 | 11 comments

Rush Limbaugh uses citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably on Ted Cruz eligibility, Citizen Wells rectification, Obama and Cruz scenarios similar both not eligible, Ted Cruz eligibility nonsense???, Imagine John McCain right Limbaugh wrong

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I am a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and have been for well over 20 years.

I do not always get to listen to him but I caught a few minutes yesterday when he was discussing the controversy over Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

He used citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

Even John McCain has this right. Cruz’s eligibility is subject to scrutiny.

To Limbaugh’s credit, he did go on to read the eligibility provision from the US Constitution and state the difficiencies of the candidates and opposing thoughts on what NBC means.

I found the following offensive. It reminds me too much of John Boehner and the mainstream media:

“I’m not saying that won’t happen, but they’re not gonna succeed in going into court and have Ted Cruz told by a court, “Hey, Mr. Cruz, we’ve just discovered you’re not a citizen. Leave the country! Turn in your passport and go back to Canada.”  It isn’t gonna happen. ”

Citizenship is not the term or the question. Hell, we’ll let anybody be a citizen.

It’s natural born citizen!

From Rush Limbaugh January 7, 2016.

“Cruz Citizenship Kerfuffle Is a Distraction”

“Well, we’re getting closer to the day that actual votes are going to happen, which is why all of this kerfuffle is effervescing up and boiling over. I mean, the nonsense on whether or not Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. It’s stunning.”

“The latest to join this bandwagon suggesting that Ted Cruz may want to actually go to court and get some confirmation on the fact he’s a citizen, it could be a problem out there, John McCain. John McCain is now officially questioning Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for the presidency. It’s getting into bizarro territory here. Remember, now, McCain was born in Panama, and his presidential eligibility is the same and based on the same constitutionality as is Ted Cruz’s. It’s amazing.

Folks, I left the program yesterday, and this was the subject we were laughing about, the way Trump was talking about it and raising the issue but not opining on it. And because the Republican establishment is scared to death of either one of them winning, the gears got into full motion and people started investigating this constitutionally, intellectually. You would not believe, one website probably has 75,000 words written on this. And the 75,000 words include the learned opinions of countless other scholars on whether or not Ted Cruz is actually an American citizen.”

“Anyway, the eligibility question is an interesting political development because it is gonna be explored, it is gonna be a distraction. The Democrats are gonna milk it for all it’s worth because of what happened to Obama and the birthers. And despite the fact that there’s no similarity or commonality in the two claims, they’re still gonna rely on the low-information voters’ ignorance of this and act like, “Hey, this is fun. You know, you guys did it to Obama, we got a chance to do it to you,” so that’s why they’re gonna get in on it.”

“But it’s an opportunity for a lot of people to show their chops, demo their chops on the Constitution. I mean, here’s what this really is all about. It’s right out of the Constitution. It is very, very simple. It’s Article 2, Section 1. “No person except a natural born citizen…” I’m telling you, I went to a blog site, and there’s a 75,000-word article on “natural born citizen,” what it means. I thought, “You know what? I could print that out, I could read that whole piece, and it’d be my program today. I could take the day off; just read that piece. At the end of that you’d think I’m nuts or brilliant.”

But 75,000 words! That’s a wild guess. But it printed out to 20 pages. “No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of it United States, at the time of the adoption of the 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 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.” There’s nothing else. You can have an IQ of 20. You can be dumb, stupid. You can be poor, you can be uneducated. None of that matters. You just have to be a natural born citizen, gotta be 35 years old, and you have to have lived within the United States for 14 years.

That’s it. So when people raise the question, “‘Natural born citizen’? What’s that mean?” ‘Cause it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Constitution. It’s not defined. The founders do not define what natural born citizen is, which means that back in the day they wrote it… It’s why original intent’s so important, folks, when you analyze the Constitution. “What did they mean? What did ‘natural born citizen’ mean at the time they wrote it?” It’s a derivative from British common law which meant natural born subject. And, I’m telling you, this… Andy McCarthy writes about this today, and he’s right.”

“It is not explained in the writings or the history of those who framed the Constitution, nor is it in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it and probably never will. “Natural born” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Its origins are unclear. It is assumed to be derived, as I say, from the British common stature law governing natural born subjects. And therein provides the wide opening for everybody to mad dash into and define it themselves as to their particular benefit.

There are essentially two ends of the spectrum here about which everybody agrees, in terms of the meaning of “natural born citizen.” 1. A person born in the United States to parents, both whom are United States citizens. Obviously, you’re natural born. You’re born here. Your parents are citizens. Bammo, you’re a citizen. Nobody questions it, and you’re natural born. By the way, if you Planned Parenthood aficionados are listening, it has nothing to do with artificial wombs and all that. That’s not what “natural born” means. We can rule that out right now. We’re not talking about test tubes here.

Although we might somewhere down the road. You never know. And the other end of the spectrum is a person born outside the United States to parents, neither of who is a United States citizen, is not a natural born citizen. Nobody disagrees with that. Even if citizenship is obtained through naturalization later, that is not natural born citizen. So if you’re a naturalized citizen — born somewhere else, your parents are not Americans — and if you come here and become a citizen? “Sorry, you’re not qualified. Too bad.”

Now, Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between these two points on the spectrum here. Rubio and Jindal born in the US to parents neither of whom was a citizen at the time that he was born here. So, bammo. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents, one of whom (his mother) was a US citizen, and as far as the best minds have worked on this, that alone qualifies Cruz. Now, Trump months ago… We had the audio sound bite yesterday. Months ago, Trump said of Cruz, “Ah, it’s not about that.”

Trump says, “Cruz is perfectly fine. It’s not a problem here. I looked into it; we have no problem with Cruz.” Now, yesterday Cruz becomes the focus point of Trump. “Weeeeell, I don’t know. I might be a little nervous. He might want to get clarification.” That’s all it took to get the media revved up and create this distraction now that is designed to distract Cruz, raise doubts, weaken support, all of these things. It’s ’cause Cruz is the front-runner now in the Hawkeye Cauci.”

Read more:

Cruz Citizenship Kerfuffle Is a Distraction

DISTRACTION???

Come on Rush, I know that you have always claimed to be an entertainer, but it’s the Constitution.

 

11 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Courts, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records

Tagged , , , ,

Trump Cruz should ask judge for a declaratory judgment, Rule if eligible to run for president as natural born citizen, John McCain Ted Cruz eligibility legitimate question, Cruz resembles Obama too much

Posted on January 7, 2016 | 27 comments

Trump Cruz should ask judge for a declaratory judgment, Rule if eligible to run for president as natural born citizen, John McCain Ted Cruz eligibility legitimate question, Cruz resembles Obama too much

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

I have always liked Ted Cruz but that “warm fuzzy feeling” is quickly fading.

Cruz is increasingly reminding me of Barack Obama with their common Harvard Law Review, attorney arrogance disregard for the US Constitution.

Ted Cruz has stated that attorneys have looked into his eligibility as a natural born citizen and given him their blessing.

Well Mr. Cruz, how about the courts, the FEC and what about the American People?

From CNN January 6, 2016.

“In separate interviews with CNN, Trump and Cruz squared off over the businessman’s comments — reported Tuesday in The Washington Post — that the senator’s birth in Canada could pose a “big problem.” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Cruz, whose mother was a U.S. citizen, should go to court and ask a judge to rule that he’s eligible to run for president.

“How do you run against the Democrat, whoever it may be, and you have this hanging over your head if they bring a lawsuit?” Trump said in an interview that aired on “The Situation Room.”

Trump said Cruz should to ask a judge for a “declaratory judgment” that Trump said would protect Cruz against any future questions about his eligibility that could come in a general election.

He also claimed that it was The Washington Post — not him — that raised the issue.”

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-donald-trump/

McCain: Cruz’s presidential eligibility a ‘legitimate question’

“McCain says it’s “worth looking into” whether Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president, since the Texas senator was born in Canada.

In an interview on Phoenix CBS affiliate KFYI, McCain said the questions raised by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump over Cruz’s eligibility are legitimate.

“I think there is a question. I’m not a constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it,” McCain said.”

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-john-mccain/

From Lawrence Sellin, PHD January 6, 2016 at Family Security Matters.

“Ted Cruz should provide evidence of his Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency”

“Despite the misinformation being disseminated by our corrupt political-media establishment and the Saul Alinsky-like lobbing of the pejorative “birther” as a means to deflect or suppress discussion of the issue; there is, in my view, no ambiguity.

According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the narrative of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1875), other legal opinions, precedence and historical background, Presidential eligibility requires that a candidate be born a US citizen of two US citizen parents at the time of birth.
If you are unwilling to accept the exhaustive legal documentation regarding the true meaning of “natural born” citizenship, you may try the common sense question:
Why has every President since Martin van Buren been a US citizen at birth of two citizen parents except Barack Obama and Chester A. Arthur, who lied about his personal history?

In order to understand the current political machinations surrounding the “natural born” Presidential eligibility debate, it is important to know that there have been numerous attempts both by Democrats and Republicans to amend the Article II “natural born citizen” clause, starting in 1975 when New York Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham introduced House Joint Resolution 33, which clearly, even then, recognized the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen:”
“Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

It appears that our corrupt political-media establishment, having failed to change the Constitution by legal amendment, achieved it in 2008 through an electoral fait accompli, when Obama reached the Oval Office even though, by his own admission, he does not meet the two parent citizen standard.

A detailed account of how, in 2008, a Constitutional requirement was erased by political legerdemain is described here.
I like most of the policies espoused by Ted Cruz, but he does his candidacy and the nation no service by not addressing the eligibility question head-on.

You can be sure the Democrats will.”

Read more:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/ted-cruz-should-provide-evidence-of-his-constitutional-eligibility-for-the-presidency

 

 

 

27 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records

Tagged , , ,

Ted Cruz FEC advisory opinion on natural born citizen status patriotic duty, Cruz born in Canada to 1 US citizen parent, Senate resolution 511 sanctioned John McCain who was born to 2 US citizen parents

Posted on January 6, 2016 | 31 comments

Ted Cruz FEC advisory opinion on natural born citizen status patriotic duty, Cruz born in Canada to 1 US citizen parent, Senate resolution 511 sanctioned John McCain who was born to 2 US citizen parents

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Donald Trump was quoted in the Washington Post on January 5, 2016.

“Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.””

Trump is correct.

This is a no brainer.

For the good of the country, the Republican Party and for Cruz himself, he should immediately request an advisory opinion from the FEC as to whether or not he is eligible for federal matching funds as a natural born citizen.

There is a precedent for doing so.

From Citizen Wells January 27, 2015.

“To be president of the US one must be a natural born citizen, not just a citizen and not a naturalized citizen.

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Based on my understanding the answer is no.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada and had only one US citizen parent.

Is Ted Cruz a patriot?

I believe so.

For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.

The FEC will be compelled to provide an advisory opinion about whether or not he is a natural born citizen.

This will be important for two reasons.

Ted Cruz needs to know early if his efforts are worthwhile and not counterproductive.

We need a ruling on this. Every government entity that should provide guidance on the definition of natural born citizen has passed the buck, including the US Supreme Court. The courts and congress have shirked their constitutional duty.

There are 2 important instances of an advisory opinion from the FEC on matching funds.

1. Attorney Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie on behalf of Barack Obama in 2007.

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

“WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub“

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.””

June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-4-obama-attorneys-democrats-control-fec/

2. Abdul Hassan, a naturalized citizen, requested an advisory opinion in 2012.

From Citizen Wells March 11, 2013.

“From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued its Per Curiam Order inHassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Order may be found here: (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf).

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

Exerpts:
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-federal-election-commission-march-11-2013-u-s-court-of-appeals-per-curiam-order-hassan-not-natural-born-citizen/

This is important.

I urge you to contact Ted Cruz with this important information.

https://citizenwells.com/2015/01/27/ted-cruz-eligible-for-presidency-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-cruz-a-patriot-ted-cruz-advisory-opinion-from-fec-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-naturalized-citizen-abdul-hassan-not-eligibl/

31 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, US Constitution

Tagged , ,

Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court

Posted on January 5, 2016 | 30 comments

Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Well this was an unexpected turn of events.  As a result of their
negligence in Answering or otherwise entering an appearance in Superior
Court, a series of events are unfolding that could result in profound
changes in the Vermont Primary this March.  What those changes will be is
difficult to predict. There are structural and legal problems with Vermont
Election Laws (Title 17) which has been thrown together “piecemeal” over
the years and this case should focus attention on the shortcomings of the
current law.

Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a
copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary
Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are
resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or
disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of
State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The
Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in
on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the
Court relating to the Primary.  The General Election and the “natural-born
Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find
an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC”
precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the
resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by
their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and
“sidetrack” the case.  The expedited resolution of the questions relating
to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont
voters.

CitizenWells  will continue to follow this case and provide all the
details here as they become available !”

The complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

30 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, US Constitution

Tagged , , ,

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

Posted on January 3, 2016 | 34 comments

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, there were only 2 types of citizens defined by US Law.

Natural born citizens and everyone else, citizens. There were no legally naturalized citizens and no provision in US Law to be naturalized until 1790.

That is why the founding fathers has to be grandfathered in with the following language:

“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 . . . .”

That language and the meaning of natural born citizen have not been altered.

Only the definition of citizen and how to attain citizenship has been altered.

It is believed by myself and many legal scholars that the founding fathers knew that one had to be born on US Soil to US citizen parents (plural).

Three years later in the Naturalization act of 1790 we find a clarification:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

Obviously from that language one had to have US citizen parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen.

Senate Resolution 511, that Barack Obama signed, stated:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Once again citizens (plural).

So from start to finish we have the requirement of 2 US Citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz had only one US Citizen parent, his mother and he was born in Canada.

Clearly not eligible.

That is why the following article from the Harvard Review is so absurd.

“We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”

This is a big lie!

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

From Citizen Wells March 16, 2015.

Truths, half truths and lies.

I will make this simple because it is.

Although our laws were derived from British laws and in fact some common laws are in force today, we have heavily modified them beginning with pre revolution colonial laws and the US Constitution.

The article above conveniently, selectively quotes the US Constitution which states:

“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 . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

Attorney Mario Apuzzo provides a scholarly explanation.

“I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html#8Lt4afwlA9IQXYvW.99

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html

 

 

 

34 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen Journalism, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Founding Fathers, Lies, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , ,

Vermont Ted Cruz eligibility challenge update January 1, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrell neglects to file timely answer, Notice of Default, Court request for Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions

Posted on January 1, 2016 | 41 comments

Vermont Ted Cruz eligibility challenge update January 1, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrell neglects to file timely answer, Notice of Default, Court request for Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Vermont’s Attorney General Neglects to File Timely Answer in Paige v.
State of Vermont, et al (2015) – An Unexpected and Encouraging Event that
Could Expedite the Case !

It Appears the Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell has gotten cold
feet when it comes to the issue of the “natural-born Citizen” question and
numerous deficiencies in Vermont’s Primary and General Election process
(Title 17),

In the case currently before the Vermont Superior Court, Washington Unit,
Paige v. State of Vermont, et al, Civil Docket #780-12-15, was filed with
the court on December 8, 2015 and service of process was executed by the
Washington CO. Sheriff’s on December 11, 2015 with an Answer or Motion
required by the court 20 days after service today, December 31.

Mr. Paige visited the court clerk’s office at midday today (12/31/15) and
was informed that no communications had been received by the court from
the VT A/G’s office. The clerk confirmed that the answer was  required by
the close of business (4:30 PM) and suggested that he stop back then and
she would provide him with a copy of the filing – which both the clerk and
Mr. Paige were certain would be filed on time.

Mr. Paige arrived just before closing and was informed that the Attorney
General had not yet filed his answer and the clerk suggested he wait until
the office closed.  Mr. Paige waited until the bailiff came by to lock up
the courthouse – no timely response was by A/G Sorrell’s office on behalf
of the State, Secretary of State Jim Condos or Attorney General William
Sorrell (who is himself named as a co-defendant as a result of his
intentional misconduct in Mr. Paige’s prior ballot challenge before the
court)

Mr. Paige informs Citizen Wells that he will be filing his “Notice of
Default” with the court on Monday morning and will subsequently ask the
court for an expedited hearing on the merits, a directed verdict based
upon the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the issuance of an Order by the Court
directing Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions to
mitigate and resolve the errors and deficiencies presented in his
Complaint.”

H. Brooke Paige

The complaint:

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

 

41 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Vermont

Tagged , , , , ,

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

Posted on December 30, 2015 | 40 comments

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

I agree with H. Brooke Paige, CDR Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo and many others that the the founding fathers understood the definition of natural born citizen meant birth on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

Yesterday Mr. Paige presented Citizen Wells with a complaint filed against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

Here are some exerpts:

“10. While it may seem counterintuitive that such a weighty question as
that of the definition of the constitutional meaning of a presidential
qualification and the other questions raised in this action, should
originate in a state superior court – it is not only entirely
appropriate, it is an absolute necessity as no other authority or
jurisdiction is available to the Plaintiff and is the most logical,
constitutionally permissible jurisdiction in light of the federal
Constitution’s protections of the coequal branches of the federal
government and the principle of Separation of Powers embodied in said
Constitution of the United States (1790).

11. In 2008, Dr. Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State
University, explained this essential legal pathway in his “The
Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?”
(Exhibit D) which, after extensive analysis of question relating to the
constitutional qualification cases relating to Senator John McCain of
Arizona and then Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, concluded:

“(F)ederal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates’ eligibility
to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether
any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial
matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter
that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a
pre-election state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified
candidate off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects
a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts
reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate’s eligibility, U.S. Supreme
Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less
fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given
Congress’ dubious legal authority to not count electoral votes of a
candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a
presidential candidate’s eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust
off their state election codes and head to state court.”

“14. In the prior action the Defendants’ council, Attorney General Sorrell
through his assistant Todd Daloz,  attempted to obfuscate and confound
both the Plaintiff and the Court  with the issues of “ripeness” and
“mootness” of the issues raised. First arguing that the answers sought
could not be raised until AFTER the election had been conducted – a
tortured interpretation of 17 V.S.A. § 2732 and shortly thereafter, with
equal absurdity, arguing that the issues had become moot with the passage
of time.”

“22. In the 2016 Presidential Election, in addition to Socialist Party
candidates Lindsay and Osorio, who have vowed to run in every election
regardless of their constitutional qualification debility; three of the
Republican Party candidates are known to have birth circumstances that
preclude their qualifying for the office they are seeking.
(a) – Texas U.S. Senator, Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz, was born in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, to a Cuban citizen father, Rafael, who became a
naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, long after his son’s birth.
(b) – Louisiana Governor, Piyush (Bobby) Jindal, was born in Baton Rouge,
LA to Indian nationals who had recently arrived in the U.S. on visas at
the time of their son’s birth. His father, Amar, was in the U.S. on a P3-1
professional work visa while his mother, Raj, was in the U.S. on a student
visa: neither was a U.S. citizen at the time of their son’s birth. (c) –
Florida U.S. Senator, Marco Antonio Rubio, was born in Miami, FL to two
Cuban nationals who came to the U.S. before Castro came to power. Mario
Rubio Reina and Oriales (Garcia) Rubio left Cuba in 1956 and continuously
resided in Miami, however they did not become naturalized citizens until
1975, when Marco was already four years old.

None of the above mentioned candidates meet the “natural born Citizen”
qualification set forth in the U. S. Constitution for serving as President
of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. has written a dissertation delineating the debilities of each of
these candidates which bars their serving:  “Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio,
and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate…(2015)”  (Exhibit
H).”

Exhibits:

Some legal scholars maintain that being a citizen at birth qualifies as being a natural born citizen.

Even by that standard, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and not eligible for presidency, Not a citizen at birth, Not born after November 14, 1986, Media and Democrats are waiting to challenge Cruz, Ted Cruz must request advisory opinion from FEC

Obviously, the US Supreme Court needs to do their duty and settle this matter once and for all, irrespective of the impact on Barack Obama.

 

40 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, Vermont

Tagged , , , ,

Senator Sherrod Brown finds certified copies of Obama birth certificate…oops, Same lies reported at Citizen Wells December 30, 2008, Democrat mantra end justifies the means

Posted on March 17, 2015 | 10 comments

Senator Sherrod Brown finds certified copies of Obama birth certificate…oops, Same lies reported at Citizen Wells December 30, 2008, Democrat mantra end justifies the means

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya”...Barrister Michael Shrimpton

 

 

Finally, certified copies of Obama’s birth certificate.

Or not.

From BirtherReport March 16, 2015.

“U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown Says Obama Gave Several News Orgs Certified Copies Of Original Birth Certificate”

A constituent received a stunning reply from U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown claiming Obama provided several news organizations with certified copies of his purported original long-form birth certificate, even though the only “news reporter” ever to reportedly touch one of the two purported certified copies was NBC’s Savannah Guthrie.

The email exchange:

From: Sherrod Brown [mailto:Senator_Brown@brown.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:12 PM
To: ###########
Subject: Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown
Dear Mr. #######:
Thank you for getting in touch with me regarding President Obama.
President Obama has provided several news organizations with certified copies of his original long-form birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are legitimate natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department has issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.
The White House has posted the Certificate of Live Birth on its website. You can view a copy at:

Click to access birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding executive orders issued by President Obama.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/us-senator-says-obama-gave-several-news.html#dqAErireC0RlzFK5.99

These lies from Senator Brown are the same ones reported at Citizen Wells on December 30, 2008 in the Hall of Shame.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

US Constitution

HALL OF SHAME

A letter received from Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio
regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Barack Obama.

President-Elect Obama has provided several news organizations with a
copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii
on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals
born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United
States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department
recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of
President-Elect Obama’s birth certificate.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown”

Senator Sherrod Brown, as a US Senator, the public expects for you to be
well informed on important matters and a presidential election certainly
qualifies as important.

Every word of your paragraph was wrong!!

Obama has provided no one a copy of his birth certificate.

Mr. Brown, do you know what “natural born citizen” means in the
eligibility provision of the US Constitution?

Being born in Hawaii does not make one a natural born citizen of the US.
If it did, then British citizens vacationing in Hawaii and delivering
a child would enable that British child to be president.

The Hawaii Health Department Official stated that they had Obama’s
birth certificate. Read more below. You should have already learned this.

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

ohbrown

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/senator-sherrod-brown-ohio-us-constitution-hall-of-shame-obama-not-eligible-us-congress-electoral-college-votes-obama%E2%80%99s-eligibility-must-be-challenged-oh-senator/

If Senator Sherrod Brown knows of the whereabouts of certified copies of Obama’s birth certificate, I would like to see them.

 

 

10 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, College records, constitution, Constitution Hall of Shame, Democrats, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election 2016, Election Law, Election update, Electors, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Lawyers, Lies, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , ,

AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman, Justice Bolin concurrence opinion flawed, Status quo tradition and pass the buck, States control presidential election to electoral certification, Qualified candidates on ballot

Posted on March 25, 2014 | 122 comments

AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman, Justice Bolin concurrence opinion flawed, Status quo tradition and pass the buck, States control presidential election to electoral certification, Qualified candidates on ballot

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

 

I still do not know how to take the concurrence opinion from Justice Bolin in the AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman decision.

It is still a bit surreal.

On the one hand, Justice Bolin agrees that the disired result is qualified candidates with any difficiencies discovered by the state. I.E. an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. He also states that the Alabama legislature should pass laws to facilitate this.

On the other hand, he (in sync with most of the nation) passes the buck, abrogating the responsibility of the state of AL to place a qualified candidate on
the ballot. This is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution as well as federal and state election laws. This is well clarified by Chief Justice Moore.

Most law school graduates are intelligent and take a rigorous course of study.

Perhaps all do not take logic 101.
I will address the “High spots” of what Justice Bolin wrote and why I believe that he erred.

Justice Bolin:

“I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to
investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election
ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result; however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”

The following AL election statute seems clear to me.

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.

The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office
for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses
the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.”

Justice Bolin:

“The evidence suggests that the Secretary of State had expressed to the plaintiffs and their representatives well prior to the primary and as early as February 2, 2012, that she had no duty to investigate the eligibility qualifications 3 of a presidential candidate. Barack Obama was nominated as
his party’s presidential candidate at the Democratic National Convention on September 5, 2012. For this election, ballots were required to be printed and delivered to the absentee election manager of each county by at least September 27, 2012. See § 17-11-12, Ala. Code 1975. The plaintiffs did not
file their petition challenging Barack Obama’s ballot access until October 11, 2012, approximately eight months after being apprised of the Secretary of State’s position that she had no affirmative duty to investigate and two weeks after the ballots were to be printed and delivered to the various
counties. The failure by the plaintiffs to at least file their petition challenging ballot access during the intervening time between Barack Obama’s nomination as his party’s presidential candidate and the time in which the ballots were due to be printed and delivered to the various counties constitutes, I believe, “inexcusable delay” on the part of the plaintiffs. The prejudice that would have ensued from such a late challenge, if successful, would have been
twofold: first, assuming it could have been accomplished from a practical standpoint, the reprinting and distribution of general-election ballots would have come, at that late date, at great financial cost to the State; and second, and just as important, the reprinted ballots would differ from absentee
ballots already sent to the members of our military and other citizens overseas. This would not be a proper way to conduct such an important election.”

Justice Bolin seems more concerned about a CYA for the Secretary of State than in upholding the constitution.

From the McInnish V Chapman Writ of Mandamus.

“13. On February 2,2072 Plaintiff MCINNISH, together with his attorney and others, visited the Office of the Secretaryo f State,a t which the Hon. Emily
Thompson,Deputy Secretaryo f State,speaking in the absence of and for the Secretary of State, s tated that her office would not investigate the legitimacy of
any candidate ,thus violating her duties under the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.”

The AL Secretary of State’s office was forewarned.

If the AL Secretary of State had reacted in a responsible, constitutional way, minimally the Attorney General could have been consulted and simple steps
taken to remedy the situation. The plaintiffs were forced to file the Writ of Mandamus. The state of urgency was created by the state of AL. Justice Bolin
attempts to lay the blame on the plaintiffs.

None of the concerns Justice Bolin stated related to upholding the constitution.

“This would not be a proper way to conduct such an important election.”

What about the thousands of disenfranchised voters casting votes for a disqualified candidate?

Justice Bolin:

“Moving beyond the merits of the matter before us, and
with due regard to the vital importance to the citizenry of
the State of Alabama that the names of only properly qualified
candidates appear on a presidential-election ballot for
election to the highest office in our country, I write
specially to note the absence of a statutory framework that
imposes an affirmative duty upon the Secretary of State to
investigate claims such as the one asserted here, as well as
a procedure to adjudicate those claims. The right of a lawful
and proper potential candidate for President to have ballot
access must be tempered and balanced against a clear process
for removal of an unqualified candidate. Nothing in this
process should be left to guesswork, or, with all proper
respect, to unwritten policies of the Secretary of State, and
certainly not without a disqualified candidate having a clear
avenue for judicial review consistent with the time
constraints involved and due-process considerations.”

Nothing in this process should be left to guesswork ???

That is exactly the situation we had in 2008 and 2012. The states abrogating their responsibilities with the last check of checks and balances being the
certification of electoral votes by congress. Congress failed in their duty despite being notified.

Talk about guesswork!

Justice Bolin:

“The general duties and scope of the Secretary of State’s
office are codified in § 36-14-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
Section 17-1-3, Ala. Code 1975, provides that the Secretary of
State is the chief elections official in the State and, as
such, shall provide uniform “guidance” for election
activities. It is, however, a nonjudicial office without
subpoena power or investigative authority or the personnel
necessary to undertake a duty to investigate a nonresident
candidate’s qualifications, even if such a duty could properly
be implied.”

What is his point? There were multiple avenues open to the Secretary of State. The AL Attorney General could have been queried and if necessary a
clarification from the courts. The Secretary of state “shall provide uniform ‘guidance'” and “Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.” Do your job
and let others do theirs. The common sense analogy is from the business world. Managers are responsible but delegate or refer tasks to the appropriate
personnel.

Justice Bolin:

“These sections, when read together, require only that the
Secretary of State certify and include on the general-election
ballot those presidential candidates who have been nominated
by their respective parties following that party’s national
convention and who are otherwise qualified to hold the office
of President. However, nothing in the express wording of
these statutory provisions imposes upon the Secretary of State
the duty to affirmatively investigate the qualifications of a
1120465
11
presidential candidate. Consistent with this conclusion is
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 1998-00200 (August 12, 1998), which states:
“The Secretary of State does not have an
obligation to evaluate all of the qualifications of
the nominees of the political parties and
independent candidates for state offices prior to
certifying such nominees and candidates to the
probate judges pursuant to [§ 17-9-3, Ala. Code
1975]. If the Secretary of State has knowledge
gained from an official source arising from the
performance of duties prescribed by law, that a
candidate has not met a certifying qualification,
the Secretary of State should not certify the
candidate.””

Bingo!

“If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not
met a certifying qualification, the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”

He just made my point!

Justice Bolin:

“Rather, the Secretary of State contends that the task of ensuring a candidate’s qualifications is left to the leadership of that candidate’s respective political party, a less than ideal procedure for all challengers because of its partisan nature. See generally Knight v. Gray, 420 So. 2d 247
(Ala. 1982) (holding that the Democratic Party had the authority to hear pre-primary challenges to the political or legal qualifications of its candidates).”

Here is the common thread with most states. Tradition within and without state laws wields more power than it should. State officials are used to getting
their cues from political parties. This is written into state laws. However, political parties have no particular consititutional power or responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

“Courts in other states have tended to agree that the investigation of eligibility requirements of a particular candidate is best left to the candidate’s political party. In Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal. App. 4th 647, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 (2010), the plaintiffs brought an action against California’s
Secretary of State and others, alleging that there was reasonable doubt that President Obama was a natural-born citizen, as is required to become President of the United States (U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1) and that 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. The trial court entered a judgment against the plaintiffs, concluding that the
Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws were enforced, but that the plaintiffs had failed to identify a state election law imposing a duty upon the Secretary of State to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates. Id. The plaintiffs appealed.”

He quotes a CA ruling (speaks for itself).
2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Finally lucidity and responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

“Looking forward, I would respectfully call upon the legislature to provide legislation that imposes this duty upon the Secretary of State and to give that office the authority and tools necessary to compel the compliance by a candidate, and that candidate’s party, upon penalty of disqualification.”

“However, it should not be necessary to rely on a post-election Congressional remedy if it can be proven before the election that the candidate is not qualified. The Secretary of State should have the written mandate to determine requisite qualifications, and a disqualified candidate should have a defined path of expedited judicial review.”

“There are obvious reasons why such post-election challenges would be undesirable. As Rick Hasen has argued in Beyond the Margin of Litigation, pre-election litigation is generally preferable to post-election litigation. It is generally better to resolve disputes before an election, allowing problems to be avoided in advance rather than putting courts in the difficult position of cleaning up the mess afterwards. This is particularly true in the context of a challenge to a presidential candidate’s qualifications. In the event that a candidate is deemed ineligible, the party could still put up a substitute.
“Of course, it is up to states–and, in particular, to state legislatures–to define the rights and remedies available in cases where a presidential candidate is alleged to be ineligible. There is certainly no constitutional requirement that the state provide either a pre-election remedy
(such as denial of ballot access) or a post-election remedy (like an order invalidating election results) for such disputes. But there remains no
constitutional bar to such state-law remedies. In fact, such remedies would seem to fall squarely within what Article II contemplates in leaving it to
state legislatures to define the manner by which presidential electors are appointed.”

Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K

122 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, democratic convention, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , ,

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

Posted on June 2, 2013 | 123 comments

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer.”…Justice Boyd, STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE, FL, August 10, 1972

I was asked recently why I had not included Florida with Alabama and Vermont supreme court challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

The reasons are simple.

First, no eligibility hearing has yet been scheduled for the FL Supreme Court. Why has the Voeltz v Obama eligibility challenge not reached the FL Supreme Court, unlike AL and VT?

Some combination of corruption, bias and incompetence within the executive, judicial and perhaps even legislative bodies of the State of Florida.

Secretary of State duty.

From the Florida statutes.

“97.012 Secretary of State as chief election officer.–The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state, and it is his or her responsibility to:

(1) Obtain and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws.”

OATH OF OFFICE
(Art. II. § 5(b), Fla. Const.)

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

THE STATES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIMARIES, GENERAL ELECTION AND EVENTS THROUGH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

The FL Secretary of State has a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

This includes the US Constitution and US Code.

Furthermore.

Justice Boyd in STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972 states:

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.”

Response from FL elected officials and judges.

From Citizen Wells February 1, 2012.

A  challenger discovered this recently.

“Below and attached is a scanned copy of the letter I just received from the Secretary of State, AKA Florida Supervisor of Elections, in response to the Obama Ballot Challenge I filed 9 January 2012 with him and Attorney General Pam Bundi. The Constitution of the State of Florida (1838) and as amended through 2008 and by adoption of the 2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook (October 2011) the State of Florida has accepted the qualifications for President and Vice President listed therein, based solely on the Certifications of Qualifications from the Political Parties.Read carefully, looks like we have no protection from fraud by either Party. Still waiting for response from the Attorney General.

Vern H. Goding, Ret. OathKeeper.
Melbourne Village, Fl 32904″

Response from Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel.

“After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/fl-primary-opens-door-to-obama-eligibilty-challenge-florida-statutes-allow-contest-10-day-window-circuit-court-obama-natural-born-citizen-deficiency/

Read the entire response from Assistant General Counsel Holland here:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sunshine-state-shenanigans

Voeltz v Obama was presented before 2 courts in FL. I will leave it to the reader to decide what combination of corruption, bias and incompetence applies to the judges.

Michael Voeltz filed a contest of election in Leon County Circuit Court on February 15, 2012.

A motion to dismiss from Obama and Secretary of State Ken Detzner was granted by Judge Terry Lewis on June 29, 2012.

The entire response from Judge Lewis will not be evaluated at this time. However, enough of the judge’s suspect reasoning will be presented to raise eyebrows.

Judge Lewis presents a flawed description of Natural Born Citizen and quotes a flawed decision in Akeny v Governor of Indiana. That is scary enough.

The next example is clearly more black and white.

Judge Lewis quotes a small portion of Cherry v Stone from August 4, 1972. This is not the better ruling to quote and not the latest.

From STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972.
“The resign law is not Secretary Stone’s to administer by such a determination, any more than the campaign spending law. His charge under the constitution and statute does not extend to the substance or correctness or enforcement of a sworn compliance with the law — with “matters in pais”, as it were. Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end. Any challenge to the correctness of the candidate’s statement of compliance is for appropriate judicial determination upon any challenge properly made, as here.”

Justice Boyd adds

“I agree with the majority opinion disposing of Miller and Wright.

As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.

The Attorney General is properly bringing this action as the Attorney for the State. Few matters in a democracy can be of greater importance to the people than those relating to qualifications of candidates for public office.”

From above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

No oath, no written compliance with the law was provided by Obama.

Plaintiff Voeltz took the case to the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Leon County.

On December 20, 2012 Judge Kevin Carroll dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Judge Carroll states that “the Electoral College met and voted on December 17, 2012.”

“this court cannot now alter the Electoral College process.”

How convenient, the state of FL dragged out this process instead of acting and expediting it.

Judge Carroll also states:

“the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida does not have jurisdiction to determine the issue of qualification for the Office of President of the United States, particularly at this date in the process.”

Judge Carroll paraphrases “Miracle on 34th Street”, that the US government recognizes Obama as president and again with the element of elapsed time as if that was prohibitive.

Judge Carroll is wrong and should be impeached!

Let’s go through some of the references to the president and candidates in general not being qualified. There are mechanisms in place for removing them from office.

At the state level, the federal government gives the states the power to control elections through the submission of the electoral count to congress.

The State election officials are not prohibited from questioning eligibility.

Even in FL, as noted above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

From 2 southeastern states:

NORTH CAROLINA

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

GEORGIA

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
“(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.”

Electoral college vote.

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

Congress certifies electoral count.

“If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.”

After the certification, the Constitution reveals the protocol for dealing with a president or candidate who is not qualified.

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 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.”

AMENDMENT XXV

“Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.”

As you see, there are laws and procedures in place from early in the nomination process and past inauguration to remedy a president or candidate who is not eligible.

It is a damn shame that we have judges and election officials in Florida and other states who shirk their constitutional duties and make such idiotic statements.

For more information and commentary visit.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/

123 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, corruption, Courts, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Florida, Lawsuits, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,