Category Archives: Supreme Court Justice

Senator Mel Martinez, Florida, US Constitution Hall of Shame, Obama not eligible, US Congress, Electoral College Votes, Obama’s eligibility must be challenged, FL senator

Posted on December 29, 2008 | 22 comments

“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.”

US Constitution

Hall of Shame

A letter received from Senator Mel Martinez regarding
Barack Obama’s eligibility issues:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s
citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond
to your concerns.

Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility
to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not
compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our
courts and political processes.

Article II of the Constitution provides that “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.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that
qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter
recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On
October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.
In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that
your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace.
Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to
produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question
of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court
further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular
presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in
the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect
Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most
fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he
has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States.
Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr.
Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that
Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.”

Mel Martinez

Senator Mel Martinez states the following:

“Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility
to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not
compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our
courts and political processes.”

Mr. Martinez is correct in that statement.

However, Mr. Martinez goes on to say:

“The Constitution, however, does not specify how that
qualification for office is to be enforced.”

That is absolutely false!
The Constitution and Federal Election Laws allow for challenges to the
Electoral College Votes when Congress convenes.

Mr. Martinez goes on to say that Judge Surrick indicated that voters should
vet presidential candidates and that the courts should not determine
citizenship. Mr. Berg’s lawsuit is still before the US Supreme Court.

Mr. Martinez then states:

“And, he has now been duly elected”

Perhaps Mr. Martinez should look up the definitions of duly and
elected.

Mr. Martinez, what about the millions of Hillary Clinton supporters
that were effectively disenfranchised when Obama stole the Democrat
Primary as an ineligible candidate.

Senator Mel Martinez, would you like to clarify what you stated?

Why Obama is not eligible

flmartinez

22 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Berg, Birth Certificate, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Constitution Hall of Shame, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Federal Court, Florida, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Judges, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

US Constitution Hall of Shame, 2008 Election, US Congress, Senators, Representatives, Constitutional crisis, Electoral College votes, Connecticut, Secretary of State, CT Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal

Posted on December 29, 2008 | 7 comments

This is the kickoff article on a series called “Constitution Hall of Shame.”
It is clear that we already have a constitutional crisis in the country before
Barack Obama theoretically gets inaugurated. The US Constitution has been
ignored, misunderstood and trampled on during the 2008 election year. We not
only have a candidate, Obama, that is clearly ineligible, but probably is not
a US citizen, i.e, illegal alien. Barack Obama, who has sworn to uphold the
Constitution, has thumbed his nose at the rule of law and American public.
So, to add to the normal political bias and posturing and tradition based
election processes, we now have a total disregard for the US Constitution.

The US Congress will meet soon to count and authenticate the Electoral
College vote.

“January 8, 2009

Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009
from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008
presidential election. The Congress meets in joint session to count the
electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President
of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly
submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.
The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes
(270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the
President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits
conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting
concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes
of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in
Congress.” Read more

Since the Electoral College vote can be challenged in Congress, we will focus
on senators and representatives that have made comments that clearly indicate
that they do not take their oath of office seriously. We will give them a
chance to respond and atone for their dereliction of duty. This will also
serve as a forum to educate and hold accountable their colleagues.

The first member of the Constitution Hall of Shame is not a congressman. It
is the state of Connecticut and includes the Secretary of State, Susan
Bysiewicz, State Supreme Court Justice Chase T. Rogers and State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal. Here is the damning paragraph in a
letter received from Susan Bysiewicz:

“On November 3, 2008 Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice
Chase T. Rogers dismissed the case after hearing testimony from my
attorneys and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the
Greenwich resident who filed the action.  The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski,
alleged that I should not have placed Senator Obama’s name on the ballot.
The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated
that there is no doubt that the Democratic presidential candidate
was born there and that the state’s health department possesses
Senator Obama’s original birth certificate.  This is now a matter
of public record.”


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.”

So, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal,
what is your excuse?

Ignorance
Apathy
Party politics
Fear

Please respond with your reasons for your behaviour.

An apology to the American public is in order.

ct3

A new page at the top of the Citizen Wells blog will be devoted to the
Constitution Hall of Shame.

7 Comments

Posted in Alan Keyes, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Berg, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, COLB, Connecticut, Constitution Hall of Shame, Cort Wrotnowski, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Keyes lawsuit, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama must prove eligibility or step down, Obama not eligible, December 18, 2008, Citizen Wells request to Obama, Greatest Generation sacrifices, Obama me generation, Patrick Fitzgerald investigations, Will Obama be indicted?

Posted on December 18, 2008 | 33 comments

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 7

One or more of the following events should happen:

  • Obama steps down.
  • Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
  • Obama is indicted and/or arrested.

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

Barack Obama

Prove you are eligible

or

Step down

 

I have the utmost respect for the “Greatest Generation.” This is
the generation that weathered the Great Depression, saved the
world in World War II and set a standard of self discipline and
sacrifice that is a model for generations to come. John McCain
comes from a long history of family sacrifice for country. He
serves as a bridge from the “Greatest Generation” to the baby
boomers and subsequent generations. Contrast these models of
self sacrifice and giving to others with Barack Obama and his
core support, the “me” generation. With Obama and much of his
support, it is all about me.

I read the obituaries each morning for two reasons. One to see
if anyone I know or a family member of theirs is listed. The other
reason is to read the short accounts of servicemen in World War II.
There were two side by side this morning that caught my attention.
One had been in the Marines in the South Pacific and the other was
in the Army Infantry and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Those
two men, who at a young age were thrust into a hell on earth,
and along with others of their generation, made it possible for us
to have an election this year. We came closer to Nazi domination
than most people realize.

Fast forward over sixty years to the 2008 election year. We have a
candidate, Barack Obama, that has consistently only looked out for
himself at the expense of others. This includes community organizing
that was just a front for political agendas. Consider these quotes
from a report to Catholic Bishops:

“To be eligible to receive CHD funds, a program must be run by the poor, benefit the poor, and change social structures that harm the poor.” However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.”

“This commentary does not oppose CHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

What Acorn and Community Organizers are really about

Think Obama has been looking out for you?

Barack Obama has taken advantage of all that this country has to
offer including education. What has he given in return? A history
of posturing himself for the presidency and association with crime
and corruption to further his career. Obama appeals to people who
are just like him, classic takers, not givers. Obama promises free
college and tax breaks for almost everyone knowing full well he can
not come through with those promises and that they are not good for
the country. Why does he promise all those things? Because it is
all about getting elected. Me me me.

The soldiers returning from World II received college educations. They
paid for their educations with blood and guts and the greatest sacrifices.

Barack Obama, the Patrick Fitzgerald investigations are closing in
on you. You will be required to prove your eligibility to be
president sooner or later.

 

Barack Obama, for once in your life, do something for the people of this
country.

Prove you are eligible to be president or step down.

 

33 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Announcements, Attorney General, Bailout, Barack Obama, Berg, Birth Certificate, Blagojevich, Chicago, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Community Organizer, Congress, corruption, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FBI, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on December 17, 2008 | 52 comments

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.

52 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, Connecticut, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Delaware, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FBI, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Hawaii, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Judges, Justice, McCain Obama, Minnesota, NC, New Jersey, New York, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, Tennessee, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, Minnesota Certificate, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Twelfth Amendment, Governor, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008, Al Franken, Norm Coleman controversy

Posted on December 16, 2008 | 17 comments

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

Minnesota could soon be famous for another 2008 Election
controversy aside from the Al Franken, Norm Coleman
senate race controversy. The Certificate of Voters must
be signed and mailed to the US Senate. If Minnesota uses
the same Certificate that was used in 2004, they had better
rethink sending it in without complying with the reference
to the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. There are
2 places in the Twelfth Amendment that refer to presidential
eligibility:

“as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President.”

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.”

Everyone involved in the presidential election has an obligation
to uphold the US Constitution. MN has taken it one step further
and explicitly included it in their certificate.

One might ask how MN Electoral College Electors would know this.
The Citizen Wells blog along with organizations like Democratic
Disaster and many other people have been notifying election
officials in all 50 states regarding the serious eligibility
issues surrounding Barack Obama and the duties of all responsible.
In addition there are many court cases in state courts as well
as before the US Supreme Court. So, ignorance of the facts or
duties will be no excuse. Check the Certificate for signatures.
Those signing the 2008 Certificate without ensuring they are
complying with the Twelfth Amendment, are most certainly
guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” and certainly removal
from office.

California Certificate of Voters is questionable

Do we have any takers?

Anyone want to call the Governor or Secretary of State’s office in Minnesota?

Recall initiatives, impeachment, removal from office?

2004 MN Certificate of Vote

mncertofvote

17 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, California, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democratic Disaster, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, McCain Obama, Minnesota, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Illinois Electors, Electoral College votes, December 15, 2008, Cspan coverage, Chicago IL and Democrat party in IL are revolting, IL corruption

Posted on December 15, 2008 | 86 comments

I just observed on of the most sickening spectacles of my life.
One of the great commenters on this blog, ms. helga, notified
me that the IL Electors voting was being covered live on Cspan.
The first Elector that I heard presenting her praise, Lauren Beth
Gash, nauseated me. She lavished such undue praise on Obama that
I stood their incredulous in disbelief. Another one spoke of
knowing Obama since he was from Illinois. Most Electors that I
observed said a few obligatory party line words. After about six
Electors, I could stomach no more. No wonder Chicago and Illinois
are such a cesspool of crime and corruption. Democratic Party
Politics in IL is void of integrity. Electors are putting party
politics above the US Constitution and the American People.
Is it any wonder that the Democrat Governor of IL, Rod Blagojevich,
has been arrested and urged to resign. Obama should be next.

If someone out there was able to stomach the entire debacle,
please let us know if all Electors followed the party dictate.

Perhaps there will be electors in other states that will put
country first. If not, let’s pursue some legal remedies to
begin the huge enema that needs to be given to this country.

86 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Chicago, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Congress, corruption, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrat delegate, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Government, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Judges, Justice, McCain Obama, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, Richard Daley, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,

Wrotnowski V Bysiewicz, US Supreme Court, December 15, 2008, Justices decide Cort Wrotnowski versus Connecticut Secretary of State Bysiewicz, Writ of Mandamus, Obama not eligible, Stay denied

Posted on December 15, 2008 | 59 comments

The US Supreme Court today, Monday, December 15, 2008, the same day
that the Electoral College is meeting to vote for president and vice
president, has decided:

 

08A469

 

 

WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE

 

 

The application for stay and/or injunction addressed

 

 

to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

 

 

 

Most of the Electors believe, falsely, that they have an overriding
obligation to vote base on political party dictates and/or state laws
dictating they must vote based on the popular vote. The Electors owe
allegiance only to the US Constitution and the American public.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

This is the opinion of Citizen Wells and I will stand by the following:

The US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in regard to several
lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, have 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?

I respect the institution of the US Supreme Court. That respect does
not automatically flow to the individual Justices. Respect must be
earned. Every citizen of this country has a duty to uphold the US
Constitution. Supreme Court Justices have the highest duty to
uphold the US Constitution. They are not above the law. We will hold
them accountable.

Unless I read something soon that encourages me to believe that the
US Supreme Court is functioning as it should, I am compelled to
believe that some or all of the Supreme Court Justices are guilty of
dereliction of duty, if not “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Here is the heart of the complaint

“HOLDING BY THE PLAINTIFF

 

Holding Regarding the Role of the State Supreme Court
 

The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut law is not explicit with respect to taking action against potential election fraud at the national level.  It neither authorizes nor prohibits.  In fact, it is silent on this important issue.  The only statutes providing direction are 9-323, and for Federal Election Disputes, sec. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15, and 10-17(a) (as found in  Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition, chapter titled:  Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court, pages 385-387.)

We do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government, we have Connecticut state election for electors who are pledged for a particular candidate which allows each state to determine how and in what manner they choose to project their power at the National Electoral College.

 
In the special case of individuals seeking the office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected as to represent the interests of the respective state at the Electoral College.
 

State law determines how the electors are determined and act. Since this is in actual fact a state election, our Secretary of State has prevue over certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast for the named candidate for President, but also the veracity of the system which including publishing and promoting the ballot and for certifying or decertifying challenged candidates; in this case the electors who act as proxies for the candidate.
 

The plaintiff argues that the Connecticut constitution and statutes and enforcement should be consistent with the principles of the U.S. constitution.  When Connecticut law provides no guidance, then an electoral duty ascribed at the national level applies at the state level as well.  If there are national standards for preventing fraud in an election, then there need to be similar standards at the state level.  The state Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that that Connecticut laws follows the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, Sec. 10-17(a) sets forth how the State Supreme Court can provide remedy.

 

Holding regarding Responsibility of the Secretary of State in National Elections
 

It is argued that the lack of language in the state law does not preclude the Secretary of State, as the Chief of Elections, from verifying national candidates for whom her constituents will vote especially so when allegations of blatant profound fraud is widely asserted.

 

She has threaded a path to inaction by her selective choice of words.  Hers is a “sin of omission” argument.  Estopple argument would say otherwise. Furthermore, without explicate legislative direction, there are still very clear “implied duties” that follow from Connecticut Statutes, Connecticut Constitution and  the U.S. Constitution that demand consideration and action from this independent branch of Government charged with action.

 

There are at least four statutes that set forth the duties of the Secretary of  State.  Plaintiff bolded passages in Sec. 9-3 for emphasis.

 

From:  Connecticut General Statutes

 

Sec. 3-77. General duties; salary. Office of Secretary full time.

…  provisions of section 11-4c. The Secretary may give certified copies of any entries in such records, files, books or other papers and of the files and records of said Superior Court and of the Supreme Court, remaining in the office, which copies shall be legal evidence. … The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of one hundred ten thousand dollars and shall devote full time to the duties of the office.

 

 Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions.

The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

 

 

The bolded language in Sec. 9-3  demonstrates that the legislature fully expected the Secretary of State to act independently and proactively to address situations germane to the task of executing elections consistent with all requirements of the constitutions and statutes.

 

The implied duty argument is vital for circumstances where questions about candidates remain, even up to Election Day.  She claims no such responsibility, yet the “national system” to which Secretary Bysiewicz refers to does not exist and/or has provided no remedy.  Despite popular misunderstanding, the FEC provides no verification whatsoever.  As the Chief of Elections, the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting Connecticut voters from fraud and unfair elections. Buck stops there.

 

Eligibility is a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of fair elections.  Where the question of eligibility has become so obvious and clear, as in the case of Sen. Obama’s missing birth certificate, the Secretary of State must move to protect the voters, investigating the allegations of fraud or directing such agency as deemed proper such as the SEEC which would investigate and inform the Secretary of State of their findings.”

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Citizen Wells comment

“There is apparently more chicanery going on at the US Supreme Court. First, Leo Donofrio had an unjust encounter
with clerk Danny Bickell. Now, Cort Wrotnowski has filed an emergency stay application with the US Supreme
Court and he is receiving the same unjust treatment from clerk Danny Bickell.”
Leo Donofrio

 

“US Supreme Court stay clerk Danny Bickell is guilty of obstruction of justice for the second time. Yesterday, Cort Wrotnowski filed an emergency stay application in the case WROTNOWSKI V. BYSIEWICZ, CONNECTICUT SECRETARY OF STATE, which is coming directly from a Connecticut Supreme Court order of Chief Justic Chase Rogers.

Mr. Wrotnowski was informed by Danny Bickell that Mr. Bickell denied Cort’s motion based on Rule 23.3, the same grounds Mr. Bickell had illegally improperly relied on to obstruct Donofrio v. Wells, the same case which is now going before the entire Supreme Court for Conference of Dec. 5th and to which Donofrio has pointed out Mr. Bickell was guilty of attemping to overturn Justice Powell’s holding in McCarthy v. Briscoe 429 U.S. 1317 n.1 (1976) and Justice O’Conner in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987).”

“Donofrio (me) believes Mr. Wrotnowski’s case is at least as strong as his own, if not stronger. And Donofrio warned Wrotnowski that Bickell was going to try the same tactic again.”

“Courageously, Mr. Wrotnowski refused to back down and eventually Bickell said he would, reluctantly, docket the case.”

December 2, 2008

Leo Donofrio

“Cort Wrotnowski, (SCOTUS Docket No. 08A469), a day after facing the shock of his life when told by a SCOTUS clerk that his renewed application to Justice Scalia would be held back for 7 days due to anthrax screening, hand delivered 10 copies of his renewed application to the Security booth at SCOTUS this morning at 10:30 AM.  Cort was told by the Clerk’s office that the papers would “probably” be in the Clerk’s office by 2:00 PM.   Cort’s application, according to Supreme Court Rule 22.1, should be “transmitted promptly” to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  Keep your eyes on that Docket to see if they will follow the Rules of Court.

59 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Connecticut, Cort Wrotnowski, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Superior Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Obama indictment to follow Blagojevich arrest?, Patrick Fitzgerald, December 14, 2008, Rezko trial, Rezko Blagojevich and Obama involved in corruption, Health Planning Board, Pay for Play, Rezko related Blagojevich donors, US Department of Justice investigation

Posted on December 14, 2008 | 53 comments

Why Barack Obama should be indicted

Part 4

One or more of the following events should happen:

  • Obama steps down.
  • Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
  • Obama is indicted and/or arrested.

If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.

 

I began learning about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich early in
2008 and wrote my first article mentioning Blagojevich in April.
Why did I begin scrutinizing Rod Blagojevich? I was reading the
transcripts from the Tony Rezko trial and investigation and the
names of Rezko, Obama and Blagojevich were intertwined in a web
of corruption and deception. On December 12, 2008, the Citizen
Wells blog presented an article about corruption in the IL Health
Planning Facilities Board. The article revealed the ties to Rezko,
Levine and Weinstein in their indictments and Blagojevich in
criminal charges placed against him. The article also requests
that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indict and/or arrest
Barack Obama for his role in rigging the board when Obama was in
the IL Senate. Article that was published and faxed to Fitzgerald

Patrick Fitzgerald and the investigators working with him have
obviously been aware of Obama’s ties to crime and corruption in
Chicago and IL for many months. They have been proceeding in a
logical and methodical manner. Sentencing of Tony Rezko was delayed
and obviously he has been talking. Anyone following this story all
year knows much about Obama’s ties to corruption and Fitzgerald
knows much more. Obama is the next logical target of indictment
and/or arrest.

Consider this article from the LA Times Top of The Ticket Blog from
April 7, 2008. Here are some exerpts from the article written by
Andrew Malcolm.

“It’s an unfolding, seemingly local political story that’s fascinating
in its revealing details about the subterranean world of business,
financial and family connections in Illinois and Chicago politics
that helped take a virtually unknown black Chicago attorney, nurtured
him politically and financially and turned him into….

the polished candidate who today thrills crowds of thousands across
the country with his eloquence.

Obama currently leads in delegates for the Democratic nomination for
president.”

“This story concerns two men, neither of whom face any legal charges
today. They are two of Illinois’ top Democratic politicians — Gov.
Blagojevich, who’s been mentioned often in court, and Sen. Obama,
who’s received only passing mentions. They’re entwined in the Rezko
saga, particularly through the bounteous campaign money he raised
for them both.

Get used to that name. Rezko’s currently in a long-running Chicago
trial on federal extortion and bribery charges. Few campaign donors
were more responsible than Rezko for the rise of Blagojevich
(Blah-goy-ah-vitch) and Obama. Both politicians came to rely on him
for political and personal advice — and lots of campaign money.”

So far, Blagojevich, reelected in 2006, is more deeply enmeshed in
the scandal than Obama, who’s not been implicated in any wrongdoing.

But all three operated in the murky world of Illinois Democratic
politics, where money, family relationships and long business
associations provide the invisible glue of the local political world.

Witnesses in Rezko’s trial have testified that Rezko recommended friends
and associates for government jobs and posts on Illinois state boards
when Blagojevich took office in 2003, and some of those friends were
generous donors to Blagojevich.

An early trial exhibit from prosecutors was a spreadsheet. Prepared by
an FBI agent , the spreadsheet identifies Rezko-related donors who
supplied $1.43 million between 2001 and 2004 to Blagojevich, who was
first elected governor in 2002.

Using Federal Election Commission and Illinois state records, The
Times’ Dan Morain compared donors on the FBI spreadsheet to Obama’s
contributors. Guess what.

Sen. Obama received $222,000 during the same 2001-2004 period from
Rezko-related Blagojevich donors.”

Read more here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamarezko.html
Several things are important about this article and facts that were
surfacing about Rezko, Blagojevich and Obama. Rezko had already been
indicted. It was clear that Blagojevich and Obama were heavily
involved with Rezko. Blagojevich has just recently been indicted.
The fact that Obama has not been officially implicated and charged
is meaningless. That is standard operating procedure.

Get used to this expression:

Obama trial.

53 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Chicago, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Dr. Robert Weinstein, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Emil Jones, FBI, Federal Court, Government, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, Joseph Cari, Judges, Justice, LA Times, McCain Obama, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Politics, Real estate, Rezko, Secretary of State, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Warrant

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on December 14, 2008 | 40 comments

“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

40 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Declaration of Independence, Democratic Disaster, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, Illinois, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Judges, Justice, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on December 13, 2008 | 33 comments

“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

Ҥ 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.

33 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, COLB, Democratic Disaster, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Founding Fathers, Government, History, John McCain, Judges, Justice, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Pennsylvania voters, republicans, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,