Category Archives: Supreme Court Justice

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

Posted on June 26, 2015 | 38 comments

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

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

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has so long been settled” without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). “

From the Center for Immigration Studies June 23, 2015.

“The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an immigration-related case Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. v. Din. The decision reaffirms that although people have the right to marry anyone they like, if the spouse is a foreigner, he or she has no intrinsic right to enter the United States when excludable under any of the grounds laid out by law.

To people like myself, it is one of the rare victories these days in an increasingly beleaguered national immigration system under peril from open borders advocates who persistently push the boundaries of sovereignty and common sense.”

“Despite the salutary outcome, there are several disturbing things about this case that merit mentioning:

  • First, of course, is that the 9-CCA ruled as it did. One sometimes wonders whether they ought to be impeached, en banc. Perhaps they could take up residence as appellate court judges somewhere else more appropriate to their extreme views? Like Venezuela.
  • Next, is that four of the nine Supreme Court justices also held that Din’s rights had been infringed because of her husband’s visa denial, and that she was somehow entitled to additional due process review because of it. Imagine the loophole that would have been caused but for one slim vote. Terrorists, narcotraffickers, and sundry other villains would be lining up to join the marriage fraud queue so that their spouses could avail themselves of their “constitutional right” to live in the United States with them.
  • Then there is the curious case of Din herself. She came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 when the Taliban was in the full glory of its power, sheltering the likes of Osama bin Laden and conducting public maimings, stonings, and executions under Sharia law at the main soccer stadium in Kabul. But where did she find her husband? In Afghanistan, where she traveled in 2006. And whom did he work for? The Taliban, from whom she presumably sought refuge. Did none of this seem curious or anomalous to the folks at USCIS — the ones who had granted her the refugee status in the first place, who were adjudicating her petition for her spouse, and who could have, who should have, taken a second look at whether her refugee application was fraudulent instead of proceeding to naturalize her? Nah, apparently not.

Kind of disturbing to think that USCIS and courts like the Ninth Circuit are the thin line protecting us from terrorists seeking benefits to live in the United States.

http://www.cis.org/cadman/supreme-court-provides-win-sovereignty-security-and-common-sense

38 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Judges, Justice, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

Tagged , , , ,

Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Cruz a patriot?, Ted Cruz advisory opinion from FEC, Natural born citizen not citizen, Naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan not eligible

Posted on January 27, 2015 | 32 comments

Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?, Ted Cruz natural born citizen?, Cruz a patriot?, Ted Cruz advisory opinion from FEC, Natural born citizen not citizen, Naturalized citizen Abdul Hassan not eligible

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

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

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

 

 

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

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Based on my understanding the answer is no.

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

Is Ted Cruz a patriot?

I believe so.

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

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

This will be important for two reasons.

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

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

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

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

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

“WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

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

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

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

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

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

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

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

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

June 19, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Citizen Wells March 11, 2013.

“From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

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

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is important.

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

 

32 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Election 2016, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, FEC, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , , ,

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont, May 15, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states abrogated duties, Judge Moore Circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus

Posted on May 14, 2014 | 30 comments

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont, May 15, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states abrogated duties, Judge Moore Circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus

 

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

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

“Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.”…Citizen Wells, March 23 2014

Thursday, May 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court will decide whether or not they will take on the appeal from the Vermont courts of H. Brooke Paige in Paige V Vermont. A challenge of Barack Obama’s natural born citizen status.

The SCOTUS should have clarified what a natural born citizen is in 2008 when Obama was first challenged.

Sadly they did not and since thrn have continued to abrogate their responsibilities.

Sadly again I expect them to pass the buck.

From H. Brooke Paige April 24, 2014.

“Wells,

Current “scoop” at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx  docket
13-1076 additional information appears at:
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1076 where the case will be shown as
scheduled for conference when a date is set (no sooner than 14 days after
date set for response).

The State filed a response waver March 26th, if the case passes muster in
the conference, SCOTUS would request that the State file a response – in
the absence of which the case would proceed on the merits outlined in my
writ.

Another Vermont SCOTUS case just after mine – Daniel Brown v Vermont,
State filed response waver on was received on April 4th with the case
“distributed” on April 16th for the conference on May 2nd.
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1113, the conference schedule is found at:
https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-05-02

I suspect that SCOTUS is awaiting “candidate Obama’s” response
(required by April 9th) before scheduling the case for conference. All
cases are considered in conference.

For now patience seems in order – the conference review is the
“gatekeeper” for SCOTUS cases – the “rule of four” decides which cases
will proceed – possibly on the May 22 or 29
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2013termcourtcalendar.pdf

Thank You for Your Continued Interest,

Brooke”

AL Chief Justice Roy Moore in the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling stated:

“Although the plaintiffs’ request for relief is moot as to the legality, conduct, and results of the 2012 election, under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness, the circuit court, in my view, should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent of ordering
the Secretary of State to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.

Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the time this petition was filed and the object of the relief requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function.

This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.

For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of State.”

 

30 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Courts, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution

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

Posted on March 25, 2014 | 122 comments

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

It is still a bit surreal.

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

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

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

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

Justice Bolin:

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

The following AL election statute seems clear to me.

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.

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

Justice Bolin:

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

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

From the McInnish V Chapman Writ of Mandamus.

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

The AL Secretary of State’s office was forewarned.

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

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

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

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

Justice Bolin:

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

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

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

Talk about guesswork!

Justice Bolin:

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

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

Justice Bolin:

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

Bingo!

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

He just made my point!

Justice Bolin:

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

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

Justice Bolin:

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

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

Finally lucidity and responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

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

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

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

Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

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

122 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

AL Supreme Court decision McInnish V Chapman likely taken to US Supreme Court, Attorney Larry Klayman, Chief Justice Roy Moore, A few good judges, Presidential candidate eligibility state function

Posted on March 24, 2014 | 96 comments

AL Supreme Court decision McInnish V Chapman likely taken to US Supreme Court, Attorney Larry Klayman, Chief Justice Roy Moore, A few good judges, Presidential candidate eligibility state function

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

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

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

 

 

From WND March 23, 2014.
“That we have sadly become a nation of men and not of laws is best seen in the context of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States. Clearly, even if Obama were born in Hawaii and not Kenya to an anti-American, Muslim, anti-Semitic father – and his being born in the United States is doubtful given all that we know (see “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”) – he is not a natural born citizen – that is born to two citizen parents – as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Over the last five years, many court challenges have been filed concerning Obama’s eligibility. Indeed, I have filed three in Florida and one in Alabama. In every instance, and I am not just referencing the cases that I filed, these court challenges have been dismissed. (They are currently on appeal.) But what is more troubling than the dismissals is that the judges presiding over these cases have generally refused to even explain the reasons for their dismissals. Apparently, they are so afraid of taking on this issue that they don’t want to go on record for their actions. That is because these dismissals are not legally justified.

To challenge a black president’s qualifications is to be branded a racist. Obama and his minions know this well and have milked his race at every turn to guilt white America, including its judges, into acquiescing to his continued destructive leadership bent on turning the country into not only a socialist pro-Muslim state, but one which is second rate in the world.”

“Last Friday, one of the few great judges in this land, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court – the jurist who was first impeached for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and then overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state to be their chief justice – had the courage to write a compelling dissenting opinion validating our challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president. While seven of his nine fellow justices took the easy way out perhaps to show that Alabama is no longer the state once governed by George Wallace and rejected my ballot challenge, Chief Justice Moore without political correctness and without the disingenuous and cowardly sensitivity to Obama’s race, told it like it is. He ruled that Alabama did have a legal duty to verify that candidates for the presidency are eligible to serve as natural born citizens if elected (see decision at FreedomWatch), Moore concluded:

“Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the time this petition was filed and the object of the relief requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before casting of its electoral votes is a state function.””

Read more:

 http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/a-few-good-judges/#iHtOzMRR31fDBoKM.99

Significance of AL Supreme Court decision.

“Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/significance-of-mcinnish-v-chapman-al-supreme-court-decision-us-supreme-court-ruling-justices-moore-and-parker-clarify-state-duties-serious-questions-about-obama-birth-certificates/

 

 

96 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Constitution

Tagged , , , ,

Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions about Obama birth certificates

Posted on March 23, 2014 | 22 comments

Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions
about Obama birth certificates

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

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

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

Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.

Judge Parker wrote:

“(Case no. 1110665.) As I noted in my unpublished special concurrence to this Court’s order striking McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus: “McInnish
attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would
raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Obama that have been made
public.”

On March 6, 2012, the Secretary of State was served with McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus, including the attached documentation raising questions
about President Obama’s qualifications. That documentation served by McInnish on the Secretary of State was sufficient to put the Secretary of State on
notice and raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Obama before including him as a candidate on an Alabama election ballot.”

The McInnish V Chapman case should proceed to the US Supreme Court, the justices should rule and clarify the duties and roles of state election officials.
The poorly reasoned opinions of the consenting justices should be denigrated and the well reasoned, well written and constitutionally sound arguments of
Chief Justice Roy Moore should be upheld. This case, while highlighting eligibility deficiencies of Obama, focuses on the role of the AL Secretary of State,
and that is what the SCOTUS would focus on. The mootness aspect could also be addressed

Mootness could also be addressed by another case before the SCOTUS. Paige V State of Vermont. Central to this case is Obama’s natural born citizen status. If
this case is selected for full court review, we would expect a clarification of the definition of natural born citizen. This is mandatory as even many
constitutional scholars are divided on the definition.

We have in McInnish v Chapman, the most extensive and comprehensive delineation and definition of the duties of Alabama state election officials including
the Secretary of State. Many of us, including Citizen Wells, have addressed this adequately beginning in 2008. Though not rocket science, nor requiring a
legal degree to understand, it was beneficial to have a strong constitutional defender such as Chief Justice Moore to explain it with so much documentation.

To sum up the gist of Chief Justice Moore’s argument which is mine as well. Clearly the responsibility for presidential elections is that of the states up to
the certification of electoral college votes. The US Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen. The states are given some leeway in
procedural matters. The state laws and procedures vary considerably. There is no law stating that all presidential candidates must be preemptively
investigated to insure being qualified. However, since only a qualified candidate can legally be elected, it is imperative that the states take all
appropriate measures. The states in general have failed miserably at this. Some states have explicit laws and procedures to remedy a non qualified candidate.
Some have provisions for challenges. New Hampshire requires a natural born citizen certification.

From Justice Bolin:

“I concur with this Court’s no-opinion affirmance of this case. However, I write specially because I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent
to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President
of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result;
however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”

I read this with a certain amount of incredulity. After pondering it for a while I am wondering if this was intentional. A set up?

There are 2 simple steps that could have been and should have been taken. Immediately contact the AL Attorney General and request guidance. Get clarification
on the definition of natural born citizen and request a certified copy of the birth certificate. You know, one like I have a copy of, a copy of the original
certified by the governing office.

After comparing the ludicrous concuring opinions with the well reasoned, constitutionally sound opinion of Chief Justice Moore, one has to wonder if this was
a set up for the SCOTUS.

On the topic of mootness, I somewhat disagree with Chief Justice Moore as well others on remedies for removal of Obama if he is not qualified. Mootness only applies in the context of state duties since they did end with the electoral college certification. However, the clarification of state duties in AL and the other states is just as if not more important. Impeachment in the general since would apply but not in the presidential removal through congress. If Obama is not qualified he is not president. No ceremony or adulation by brainwashed school children effects that.

If Obama is not qualified, he should immediately be arrested and tried for treason.

Few are willing to state this, but it is the truth.

Of course with the Obama controlled USDOJ this would be tricky.

However, Eric Holder and others in the USDOJ were selected by Obama and perhaps they could be removed first.

Other states and state election officials should take notice. If Obama is proven to be ineligible, many of those officials have committed treason as well. Not to mention enablers like Nancy Pelosi, et al.

I and others contacted NC and other state election officials in 2008 as well as 2012 to warn them of probable Obama eligibility deficiencies. They were warned and have no excuse.

It is on the record now. From a state supreme court.

State election official duties.

Probable Obama eligibility deficiencies.

The results of the Arpaio Zullo investigation now take on more significance.

22 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Chief Justice, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Eligibility, Obama, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , ,

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

Posted on March 21, 2014 | 129 comments

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

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

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

The Alabama Supreme Court has made a ruling on the Obama Eligibility case in McInnish V Chapman.

From initial reading there is a non affirmative ruling with significant dissent.

From Chief Justice Roy Moore’s dissenting conclusion.

“Although the plaintiffs’ request for relief is moot as to
the legality, conduct, and results of the 2012 election, under
the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to
mootness, the circuit court, in my view, should have granted
the petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent of ordering
the Secretary of State to implement the natural-born-citizen
requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in
future elections.

Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have
granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those
candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot
for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the
time this petition was filed and the object of the relief
requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a
President who has taken the oath of office is within the
breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of
the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the
electoral votes is a state function.

This matter is of great constitutional significance in
regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was
elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the
remedy of impeachment is available through the United States
Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode,
can pursue this remedy through their representatives in
Congress.

For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s
decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court
dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of
State.”

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

129 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election update, Eligibility, Judges, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , ,

Vermont Supreme Court Justices should be impeached, Mootness of Presidential eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen, Paige V State of Obama, US code on vacancy due to failure to qualify

Posted on March 13, 2014 | 56 comments

Vermont Supreme Court Justices should be impeached, Mootness of Presidential eligibility, Obama not natural born citizen, Paige V State of Obama, US code on vacancy due to failure to qualify

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

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

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

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

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

 

 
Why is no one talking about this?

When I first read the Vermont Supreme Court decision on the appeal in Paige V State of Vermont, I was dumbfounded.

I will focus on the core stupidity of the decision:

“Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States.”

http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2012-439.html

A) If Obama is not a natural born citizen he is not president. Period!
B) An individual otherwise appearing to be president can create a vacancy due to not being qualified. This is spelled out in the US Code.

3 U.S. Code § 19 – Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

“(a)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.

(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.

(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) orsubsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that—

(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and

(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.

(d)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.

(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.

(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.

(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.

(f) During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19

One or more of the VT Supreme Court Justices should be impeached.

Paige V State of Vermont has been presented to the US Supreme Court.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/paige-v-state-of-vermont-et-al-us-supreme-court-writ-of-certiorari-march-7-2014-update-mario-apuzzo-and-counsel-obama-eligibility-natural-born-citizen-deficiency/

 

56 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Court of Appeals, Eligibility, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, US Constitution, Vermont

Tagged , , , ,

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

Posted on October 1, 2013 | 77 comments

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”…Eric Holder’s US Justice Dept lawsuit against NC

“‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’”

“The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own”… Chief Justice Roberts, Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al 

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

The corrupt Obama US Justice Dept. led by Obama’s pal Eric Holder is sueing the state of NC over its recent changes to the voter laws.

First of all I would like to thank Eric Holder for helping to highlight the impact of the Obama Administration on blacks in NC.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”

Eric Holder claims that the new NC voting law changes are discriminatory.

“Provisions of HB 589
23. HB 589 makes several significant changes to North Carolina’s election law. Among other changes, HB 589 alters existing law by reducing the number of early voting days available to voters, eliminating same-day voter registration during the early voting period, and prohibiting the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who attempt to vote in their county, but outside their home precinct. HB 589 also imposes a new photo identification requirement for in-person voters.
”

“the discriminatory impact of photo identification requirements on minority voters, and the challenges people encounter in obtaining the underlying documentation needed to acquire the types of photo identification that would be required by the proposed law.”

“Implementation of HB 589 Will Have a Discriminatory Result”

“The reduction of the number of days of early voting and elimination of the first seven days of early voting, including the first weekend days of early voting, will have a discriminatory impact on African-American voters in North Carolina.”

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/646201393013723793555.pdf

Legal definition of discrimination.
“In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

The NC voting laws are clearly not discriminatory. They apply equally to all citizens.

A fifth grader can understand that.

From Gateway Pundit September 30, 2013.

“So, will Holder sue the majority of US States?

  • 14 states allow straight party voting. North Carolina now joins the 36 other states that do not.
  • 15 states allow NO early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. (Those include NY and Mass)
  • 32 states allow early voting ranging from 4 days prior to election day to 45 days with an average 19 days. North Carolina allows 10 days but requires the same number of hours of early voting that was available in 2012 and 2010 when the early voting period was 17 days.
  • Only 1 state allows same day registration during early voting. NC was the only other state to allow this and has now joined 49 states in not allowing same day registration during early voting.
  • 11 states allow same day registration on Election Day. North Carolina does not.
  • 5 states allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre-register to vote. 45 states do not, including now, North Carolina.

Illinois and Delaware require voter ID. Hawaii has even stricter voter ID requirements. Why is Holder not suing those states?”

Read more:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/hyper-partisan-obama-doj-to-announce-suit-against-north-carolina-voting-laws/

FURTHERMORE

Even though the recent US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al addressed the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the constitutional provisions giving the states most of election powers.

“Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10. This “allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___
(2011) (slip op., at 9). But the federal balance “is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
More specifically, “‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462 (1991) (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 647 (1973); some internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; see also Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., ante, at 4–6. But States have “broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizona, ante, at 13–15. And “[e]ach State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.” Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, 161 (1892). Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Perry v. Perez, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960); Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725–726 (1869); emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 567 (1911). Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Id., at
580. Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U. S., at 328–329. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U. S., at 203.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a §2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request,longer if he requests more information. See 28 CFR §§51.9, 51.37. If a State seeks preclearance from a three judge court, the process can take years.
And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process. Even if a non covered jurisdiction is sued, there are important differences between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the preclearance proceeding “not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation.” 679 F. 3d, at 884 (Williams, J., dissenting) (case below).
All this explains why, when we first upheld the Act in 1966, we described it as “stringent” and “potent.” Katzen
bach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. We recognized that it“may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.” Id., at 334. We have since noted that the Act “authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policy making,” Lopez, 525 U. S., at 282, and represents an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government,” Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 500–501 (1992). As we reiterated in Northwest Austin, the Act constitutes “extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system.” 557 U. S., at 211.”
Is this just another Obama administration race baiting move or retribution for NC rejecting Obama and the Democrat Party in 2012?
What a bunch of morons.
In their zeal to attack the state of NC they reveal the plight of blacks under Obama.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”
Thanks to commenter Jonah.

77 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Eric Holder, Founding Fathers, NC, NC voters, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

Posted on May 27, 2013 | 78 comments

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

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

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

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

 

Obama’s eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen of the US is being challenged in 2 state supreme courts.

In Vermont, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, H. Brooke Paige has challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status due to his father being Kenyan/British.

In Alabama, perhaps the most conservative state in the US, Virgil Goode and Hugh McInnish have challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status since no evidence of US birth has been presented. Mike Zullo of the Arpaio investigation has submitted a lengthy affidavit regarding the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov and other records.

We expect a fair proceeding in the AL Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Roy Moore, is a strong proponent of adhering to the US Constitution and has spoken of the lack of evidence for Obama being eligible.

From Citizen Wells April 1, 2013.

From Attorney Larry Klayman April 2013.

“Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court”

“Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for office.”
 

“Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.”

“Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

 
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
 
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
 
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
 
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.”
 

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/obama-eligibility-appeal-filed-in-judge-roy-moores-alabama-supreme-court-attorney-larry-klayman-secretary-of-state-beth-chapman-failed-to-verify-moore-expressed-doubts-about-obama/

What may surprise you is the hearing that H. Brooke Paige received before the VT Supreme Court on April 23, 2013.

Despite the best efforts of Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz to obfuscate by distorting VT statutes and election responsibilites and Mr. Paige’s standing, some of the justices presented intelligent questions and statements.

I have had several email exchanges and a lengthy phone conversation with H. Brooke Paige. This quote says much:

“Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

Here is a segment of exchanges between Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz and the supreme court justices.

78 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Hawaii, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, Standing, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , , , ,