Category Archives: Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Obama not president, January 20, 2009, US Constitution, 20th Amendment, Joe Biden president, Obama not qualified, Chief Justice, John Roberts, US Supreme Court, Oath of office

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

 

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, Barack Obama will not be President of the United
States at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009. No Chief
Justice administering the oath of office, no oath sworn
by a “president elect” makes one president. There are 3
mandatory requirements to achieve a legal inauguration.

  • A qualified president elect.
  • Sufficient votes by the Electoral College.
  • Certification and count of Electoral College votes by
    Congress.

 

At noon on January 20, 2009, Joe Biden will be president
until a president shall be deemed qualified. This comes
direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“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;”

Further reading of the 20th Amendment reveals that Congress
may also determine if the vice-president is qualified. This
is part of the scenario of a constitutional crisis that
Philip J Berg and others have warned of. The language of
the 25th amendment includes options that may further heighten
the crisis level.

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.

 

RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.org, Restore the Constitutional Republic website, January 17, 2009, Dean Haskins Chairman, Blog, Forum, Videos, US Constitution, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Dean Haskins, Chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic has
just notified me that the new website is up. We have been working
with Dean and the group to inform congress, other officials and the
American public of the eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama
and the importance of upholding the US Constitution. Even if Obama
is inaugurated, there is a groundswell of concern over violation
of the US Constitution, degradation of the rule of law and disregard
for this country. Please visit the new site and get involved in
saving this country.

New website description:

Welcome to Restore the Constitutional Republic

Restore the Constitutional Republic is an organization dedicated to those patriots who recognize that our government has become unresponsive to the will of those who desire . . . no demand . . . that our Constitution be upheld, defended, and preserved.

Our Beginnings . . .

During the latest presidential campaign, it became apparent to many Americans that there were some questions surrounding Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States. Several lawsuits were filed simply asking that he produce the necessary documentation to prove his “natural born” qualifications, as required by our Constitution. Article II 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Barack Obama Hired Lawyers

Instead of doing what every one of us has had to do (by just showing his birth certificate), Mr. Obama chose to fight the more than twenty lawsuits filed across the country (a number that continues to grow).

Knowing that common sense dictates that one doesn’t fight to hide something he doesn’t want kept secret, Restore the Constitutional Republic was born. We believe it is time to hold our government accountable, or to reclaim it for “We the People.”

Please join us in our forum and volunteer to help us take back America!

From the blog:

Shall They Now Have Died in Vain?

January 17th, 2009

Dean C. Haskins

Before now, I never felt compelled to regard myself as a “patriot.” It’s not that I didn’t consider myself patriotic; it’s that nothing had occurred in my 49 years that even remotely challenged my deep, abiding trust in our Constitution. My national naivety ended in 2008. My political innocence was the victim of a brutal rape. The media-fueled presidential campaign that ubiquitously ravaged the senses and sensibilities of our general public, held remotely in its grasp a deceptively shrouded secret―an obfuscation so wily, so destructive of the pristine document that had brilliantly guided our republic, that only the most astute, watchful amongst us chose to voice their very founded concern.

Simply put, the Democratic National Committee chose a candidate for president who had never been required to produce even the most basic proof that he was constitutionally eligible to hold the office. That party cavalierly assumed that merely contriving a campaign with all the glitz and glitter of a broadway production would blind the common sense of common people (you know, those “smelly” Washington, DC tourists), and amidst the cunning smoke and mirrors in which they shrouded the ascension of their modern day messiah, they believed all the palm frond waving through which their deity entered the Jerusalem gates would preclude any possible question about his qualifications from those so far beneath them.”

Read more here:

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/

Philip J Berg questions and answers, Jeff Schreiber interview, Berg answers, January 5, 2009, Interpleader explained, Air Force colonel Hollister, Obama ineligible, Obama not natural born citizen, Constitutional crisis, US Supreme Court

Whether you agree or not with everything that Philip J Berg believes,
the man deserves a lot of credit for his efforts to hold Barack
Obama accountable in regard to presidential eligibility. Likewise,
Jeff Schreiber, a law student,legal writer and blog owner has done
a great job of covering the Philip J Berg lawsuits. Here are some
exerpts from questions Jeff Schreiber asked of Mr. Berg:
Jeff Schreiber reports:
Questions and answers with Philip J Berg.

“As an aside, despite the way he is painted by supporters and detractors alike,
and despite his views on the attacks of September 11, 2001–which I absolutely
abhor and he knows it–I’ve always found Berg to be rational and to be gracious.
I spoke with him this weekend, and this is the result.”

“You filed a new lawsuit last week. Tell me about it.

This lawsuit is an interpleader action, and the reason we went this way is
because an interpleader action will shift the burden of proof to Barack Obama.
Notice that we didn’t sue Obama, though. We sued Barry Soetoro, mainly because
we believe that is his real name. We’ve seen no documentation showing that he
has changed his name from Soetoro to Obama. So, when he was registering himself
in all of the states—and there are 50 states, Barack—he was registering with
the wrong name. That’s fraud. His name was Barry Soetoro when he was adopted in
Indonesia, and nothing shows that it has been changed since.

Take for example if I adopt someone from Kenya, if I adopt a girl from Kenya,
she would take my last name, Berg. And, if anything changed in the future, if
she wanted to use another name for any reason, she would have to legally change
that name.”
“Tell me about Col. Hollister.

Col. Hollister, the plaintiff, is a retired Air Force colonel, he’s about 52
years old or so, and served this country from 1978 to 1998 before being honorably
discharged. During that time, when he served this country, he swore to protect
America against all enemies foreign and domestic – which is interesting because,
right now, we may have a domestic crisis going on.

Hollister contacted us. He’s not the only military man we’ve had contact us in
hopes to help. We’ve had quite a few who, over the past few months, called to offer
their support. He called us because he is perplexed. Here he is, on the Individual
Ready Reserve—meaning that he is able, that he is subject to Presidential recall
now and for the rest of his life—and he sees what’s going on across the world and
he’s perplexed as to whether he could, if called up to serve again, follow orders
from a Commander in Chief who may or may not be constitutionally eligible for that
position. If Obama is sworn in on January 20th, if he takes that Oath of Office,
he is usurping the powers of the president of the United States. And, when the
truth comes out, and it will, it will mean that all of Obama’s laws and orders will
be deemed invalid and will come back.

So Col. Hollister is perplexed. If he is called up, he has a duty to obey lawful
orders from the Commander in Chief and on down the chain of command. And he would
also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. He took an Oath of Enlistment to fight
for and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but he’s
confused because he doesn’t know who these duties will be owed to if Obama is sworn
in. Is he qualified to be Commander in Chief? What if he was born in Kenya? What if
he is an illegal alien?”

“Speaking of timing, what do you think is the significance of January 9th? Is it
significant? Why do you think you were the first case into the Supreme Court, but
the last case out?

I don’t want to say anything to blow it, you know, but I think we’ve got a great shot.
They could have thrown us out weeks ago. January 9th could very well be a significant
day in all of this, because Obama will actually be president elect instead of
designate.

On November 4th, he just got the popular votes. We tried to show that he shouldn’t
have been on the ballot so we could avoid a constitutional crisis, but that obviously
didn’t work. On December 15th, he just got the electoral votes. We pushed to stop
that vote but were obviously unsuccessful. Those votes will be counted on Thursday,
and barring anything drastic like a congressman standing up to protect, he will
finally be President-Elect Barack Obama.”
“Let’s say for a moment that it works. Obama is deemed ineligible. What next for the
country? What next for you?

I don’t know. It depends upon when Barack Obama is declared ineligible. If it happens
before Thursday, it means one thing. If it happens after Thursday but before January
20th, it means another thing. If it happens after January 20th, it appears that Biden
would be president, but who knows? After all, he was selected by someone who shouldn’t
have been running for president and selecting vice presidents in the first place.

I just hope and pray, every night, for calm and peace in this country, and if Obama is
found to be unqualified, I would urge political and cultural leaders to come forth with
something like a national broadcast and appeal for peace. This was Barack Obama’s doing,
this was caused by one man, and nobody else. In fact, Barack Obama himself come out and
say “I’m proud to have made history on November 4th, in getting more votes than anybody
else, but because of some issues with my past, I have no choice but to step down.” And
he should appeal for peace and calm.”

Read the rest of this great article here:

http://www.americasright.com/

Virginian Pilot, PilotOnline.com, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Obama birth certificate, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, US Supreme Court, VA newspaper

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

 

I have watched the 2008 election in horror and amazement as Barack Obama
has passed from the primaries through the Electoral College vote with
a great deal of help and few challenges from the MSM. I watched as
newspapers like the Charlotte Observer and Chicago Tribune endorsed
Obama. The Tribune, speaking out of both sides of their mouth, actually
did cover some negative aspects of Obama, but still endorsed him.

I was just provided a heads up to an article that reaches a whole new
pinnacle of bias and ignorance. And to add to the audacity of this article,
it came out in the area of a huge US Naval base and military population.

The Virginian Pilot, on December 10, 2008, came out with the following
article that will leave anyone that has earnestly followed the Obama
eligibility scandal, shaking their heads.

“Facts can’t dispel Obama conspiracy sideshow
Posted to: Editorials Opinion”

“The certifiable certificate hunters occupy just one branch of the crazy
tree of deniers who have crafted a tangle of competing claims, none of
which makes anything like sense:

 
1. Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, forged by the state of Hawaii,
which would be plain if the campaign would just release it, along with his
letters of admission to Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard.

2. The decision to release the birth certificate to the well-respected
FactCheck.org Web site (which confirmed its authenticity) proves that Obama
has something to hide, since facts are untrustworthy.

3. The publication of a birth announcement in the local paper 47 years ago
proves nothing, since that was a ruse to protect the infant Obama’s ability
to run for president, since he was actually born in Kenya.

4. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and can prove it,
his father was a Kenyan, and, therefore, Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen,
despite the fact that he was born in America to an American mother.

5. Actually, his father was British. But same thing.

6. Since Obama later lived in Indonesia with his mother, he actually became
an Indonesian citizen, because anyone who lives anywhere other than the United
States automatically becomes a citizen of that country. It’s in a book someplace.

7. Because Obama hasn’t been willing to directly answer questions dropping
from the crazy tree — and because the courts have refused to make him — then
Obama is a traitor, and nobody has to listen to him when he’s president.”

“That last one seems to be the goal, of course, of the whole bizarre campaign,
which would be meaningless to most of us except for the fact that the U.S.
Supreme Court wasted a few minutes recently batting aside a lawsuit on the
subject.

These conspiracy kooks (more than a few of whom also believe that George W.
Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks) have erected an impenetrable wall of lunacy
around Obama’s citizenship, and no birth certificate or testimony, no court
decision or proof can penetrate it.”

The complete article:

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/facts-can%E2%80%99t-dispel-obama-conspiracy-sideshow

Let’s examine the irresponsible reporting line by line:

1. “Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, forged by the state of Hawaii”

How would anyone know. Philip Berg and many others have been requesting
to see it for months. Unlike John McCain who presented his vault copy
of his birth certificate (long form), Obama has spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars and employed an army of attorneys to avoid presenting proof he
is eligible. I haven’t heard of any lawsuit accusing the state of Hawaii
of forging a birth certificate.

2. “The decision to release the birth certificate to the well-respected
FactCheck.org Web site (which confirmed its authenticity) proves that Obama
has something to hide, since facts are untrustworthy.”

Obama has released his birth certificate to no one. A questionable COLB,
a record of birth, was placed on several websites. Factcheck.org well
respected. It depends on who you ask. Obama has longtime ties to Annenberg.
Annenberg funds Factcheck.org. See the truth about the COLB below.
 
3. “The publication of a birth announcement in the local paper 47 years ago
proves nothing”

Probably the most accurate thing written here.

4. “Even if Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and can prove it,
his father was a Kenyan, and, therefore, Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen,
despite the fact that he was born in America to an American mother.”

That is a huge question. Obama has provided no,legal proof of where he was
born. And yes, being born to a Kenyan father, a British subject does in
fact present a problem. The founding fathers had to be grandfathered in
for this very reason.

6. “Since Obama later lived in Indonesia with his mother, he actually became
an Indonesian citizen”

That part is true. Living there did not make him an Indonesian citizen but
being adopted by his step father, Lolo Soetoro, did. We now have the ultimate
verification of the adoption, Obama’s mother and Lolo Soetoro’s divorce
decree proves that Obama had been adopted.

7. “Because Obama hasn’t been willing to directly answer questions dropping
from the crazy tree”

Was this article written by someone in the Obama camp? This is a classic
Obama camp tactic of personal attacks and attempts to discredit anyone
questioniong the “messiah”, Obama.
“That last one seems to be the goal, of course, of the whole bizarre campaign,
which would be meaningless to most of us except for the fact that the U.S.
Supreme Court wasted a few minutes recently batting aside a lawsuit on the subject.”

So now the US Supreme Court is wasting time? Who are these people?
Philip Berg has two dates before the US Supreme Court and there are many others
in state courts.

It is obvious that the Virginian Pilot does not let facts get in the way of
writing an article or editorial. And to publish this nonsense in the backyard
of the fine service people living in the area. Those in the military swore an
oath to defend the US Constitution and live this oath daily. This is one of
the most irresponsible articles of publishing I have ever read.

Virginian Pilot. You are not the only newspaper that is deserving of this, but
for your flagrant disregard for the truth, the US Constitution and your readers,
you are the first newspaper to be inducted into the US Constitution Hall of
Shame. Want to make things right? Apologize to your readers and the American
public and do your job right.

By the way, is there a name associated with this editorial? I would not have
put my name on this rubbish either.

Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

Latest information on court cases

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.”

What is a Natural Born Citizen, December 31, 2008, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama’s father Kenyan, British rule, Obama born in Kenya?, US Constitution, Founding fathers, Obama lies, restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org

 

Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

 

 

 Why Obama is not eligible

 

What Hawaii Health Official really said

 

Latest information on court cases

2008 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

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.

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

Citizen Wells letter to Electors, Electoral College, Uphold US Constitution, December 15, 2008 Electors vote, Obama is not eligible, Demand proof, 2008 Election, Election laws, Political Party pledges, State laws unconstitutional

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

To: 2008 Presidential Election Electoral College Electors

From: Citizen Wells

Electors,
You are being put into the uncomfortable position of having to
question your vote for president of the US. In the past, this
was a much simpler decision. Party politics has always been an
issue but in the past, after the general election, the rules
were fairly simple for you. You voted based on the party pledges
and state rules without giving it much thought. The duty to vote
in the manner as directed by the US Constitution has always been
there, but you never had to be concerned about violating it.

The 2008 Election year is unique in American History. Early in
2008 questions arose about the eligibility of John McCain and
Barack Obama to be president. John McCain put to rest any doubts
by presenting to Congress a vault copy of his birth certificate.
As the year progressed and more was learned about Obama’s history
and evasive attitude, more people began questioning Obama’s
eligibility. Several attempts were made on various websites to put
the issue to rest by presenting copies of what were alleged to be
COLB, Certificate of Live Birth. A COLB is a record of birth and
is not a legal verification of location of birth and other birth
facts.

On August 21, 2008, Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia
Federal Court demanding that Barack Obama provide proof of eligibility.
Mr. Berg provided many details surrounding Obama’s past such as
Obama’s probable birth in Kenya, travel forbidden to American
citizens in Pakistan and Obama’s school records and other records’
that Obama has kept hidden from scrutiny. Many lies and deception
have been initiated by the Obama camp. One of the more interesting
ones is an AP report that tried to insinuate that Hawaiian Health
Department officials stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They
did not state that.

Many other lawsuits have developed from the Berg lawsuit including
the Alan Keyes lawsuit in CA. Obama has spents hundreds of thousands
of dollars and employed multiple law firms to avoid proving his
eligibility. Lawsuits are still alive in the US Supreme Court and
many state courts. Lawsuits place the burden of proof on the
plaintiff and require very strict legal wording.

Why are you being put in the position of questioning your vote and
complying with the US Constitution? The Constitution gives the power
and control over elections to the states through the vote of the
Electoral College. State laws vary greatly but to various degrees
define how candidates get on the ballot and other rules controlling
the election process. Some states define the method of challenging
or ensuring that a candidate is qualified. Regardless, the states
do have the power and the duty to ensure that a presidential
candidate is qualified to take office.

Why are the states not requiring that a presidential candidate is
qualified? The short answer is that they are passing the buck. The
long answer is that tradition, politics and political parties are
driving the process when in fact political parties are given no
power or authority by the US Constitution. The typical answer
given by a secretary of state or other state election official is
that they get their cue from the political party as to who gets
put on the ballot and some even state that it is the responsibility
of the party to vet the candidate. While I see no problem getting
names for ballots from the political party, that does not remove
the Constitutional duty of the states. This is a blatant violation
of duty by state officers, election officials and judges and could
fall under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To make matters worse, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in
regard to several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be
president, has not addressed three distinct constitutional issues
that need to either be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

No one wants to take responsibility. Why? Many of the reasons are
obvious. Party politics, fear of offending someone, fear of riots,
ignorance, tradition.

Electors. You are in a unique position. We have a system of checks and
balances in this country that has served us well over the centuries.
Our Founding Fathers had witnessed the monarchies and totalitarian
regimes prevalent in much of their world. They did not want that. That
is why we have executive, legislative and judicial branches and that
is also why we have an Electoral College system of voting for president.
The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two
primary goals.To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from
being dominated by a few larger states with higher population densities
and to prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed
populace.

Consider the following quotes:
Alexander Hamilton echoed the thoughts of many of the founding
fathers when he wrote in the Federalist Papers: “afraid a tyrant could
manipulate public opinion and come to power.”
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”
Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

Electors, you have a duty to uphold the US Constitution. As Harry Truman
said, “The buck stop here.” You can blindly follow party propaganda or
you can act as concerned Americans and do the right thing. What do other
concerned Americans expect from you? That you make certain that the
candidate that you vote for is qualified under the US Constitution,
nothing more, nothing less.

This is so simple a school child can understand it. Why would Barack
Obama spend so much money, time and resources to avoid proving his
eligibilty. The answer is obvious. Obama is not qualified. However,
all you have to do is demand that he provide legitimate, legal, proof
and you can rest easy knowing you have done your job, your duty to
this country and the US Constitution.

One person, one vote can make a difference:

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Those Electors helped save the Union and the world.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

2008 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Democratic Disaster, Questions and answers

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

Presidential Election

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

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

Are Electors required to vote according to Popular Vote?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

State Law Example: Pennsylvania

“§ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

Electors helped save the Union

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

If anyone has any further questions they can be asked on this
blog or go to:

http://www.democratic-disaster.com/


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the
Citizen Wells blog. Every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the content. Readers are encouraged to visit source
material such as the US Constitution, Federal Election law and
state laws.

Donofrio Application denied by US Supreme Court, Leo Donofrio response, Wrotnowski case still pending, Supreme Court Justices, No statement, Donofrio vs Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State, US Constitution not upheld by Justices or NJ officials, December 8, 2008

Leo Donofrio’s application for stay with the US Supreme Court was denied today, Monday, December 8, 2008. Here is the latest statement from Mr. Donofrio.

“DONOFRIO APPLICATION DENIED – WROTNOWSKI APPLICATION STILL PENDING
[UPDATE 12:23 PM  The main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19.  They had the issue before them for for sixteen days.  Yes, they didn’t take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument.  But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that.  The case and issues were considered.  Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal.  I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application.   Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds.  Please remember that.  It’s important for history to record that.]

My application was denied.  The Honorable Court chose not to state why.

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday.  I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court.

My case may have suffered from the NJ Appellate Division Judge having incorrectly characterized my original suit as a “motion for leave to appeal” rather than the “direct appeal” that it actually was.  On Nov. 21 I filed official Judicial misconduct charges with the NJ Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and I updated  SCOTUS about that by a letter which is part of SCOTUS Docket as of Nov. 22.  The NJ Appellate Divison official case file is fraudulent.

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort’s case, I must stress that Cort’s case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does.   It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

I don’t know if it’s significant that Cort’s case was not denied at the same time as mine.  His case argues the same exact theory – that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was a British citizen at birth.

All eyes should now be closely watching US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If Cort’s application is also denied then the fat lady can sing.  Until then, the same exact issue is before SCOTUS as was in my case.  Cort’s application before SCOTUS incorporates all of the arguments and law in mine, but we improved on the arguments in Cort’s quite a bit as we had more time to prepare it.

I was in a rush to get mine to SCOTUS before election day, which I did do on Nov. 3.

Cort’s case has a much cleaner lower court procedural history.

I’m not trying to play with people’s minds here.  SCOTUS has not updated Cort’s docket and until they do there can be no closure.  I was expecting, if they didn’t grant certiorari, that they would deny both cases at the same time so as to provide closure to the underlying issue.  I hate to read tea leaves, but Cort’s application is still pending.  That’s all we can really say with any certainty.”

Read more here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

I have respect for the institution of the US Supreme Court.

Respect for the Justices of the US Supreme Court has to be earned and the jury is still out.