Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision
“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
“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
“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
From H. Brooke Paige.
“A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and
rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness. While not
stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked
standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court erred in
assigning blame for procedural delays entirely on plaintiff as I did not
make requests for elongation of time in filing while the defendants did so
on five occasions.
Robinson, with Eaton concurring, took exception with the court’s failure
to find that case presented a permissible exception to mootness.”
From the decision:
“¶ 12. As to the second prong, appellant recognizes the change in the facts, acknowledging in his brief that “[w]e are beyond the primary election in Vermont.” In response, he re-directs his argument away from the fall 2016 election and toward future elections. First, he maintains that
addressing the issue of whether Senators Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified to appear on future ballots not only would redress his injuries but also would be practical for the public as a whole:
The Court can give plaintiff a remedy which will redress his injuries,
that remedy being a declaration that Cruz and Rubio are not Article
II natural born citizens and that the Vermont Secretary of State is
not to place their names on the primary or general election ballot in
future presidential elections. . . . At this stage, it will not cause the
State of Vermont any inconvenience or extra expense for it to follow
a judgment of this Court as to whether the names of Cruz or Rubio
should be allowed to be printed on future election ballots.
Addressing the issue at this early stage will avoid any confusion or
interference with the rights of Vermont voters to cast their ballots
during future elections. (Emphasis added)
And later appellant directly argues that the issue is bound to come up again:
The issue of what is a natural born citizen and the state’s role in
answering that question as it applies to placing candidates for
president on the state election ballots remains even though the
election is over . . . this issue just keeps coming up but is never
resolved for one reason or another. (Emphasis added)
¶ 13. Without assessing the first prong of the test for cases that are capable of repetition but evading review, we determine that appellant is unable to satisfy the second prong—he is unable to show that there is a reasonable expectation that he “will be subjected to the same action again.”
Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s argument here boils down to mere speculation: “Cruz and Rubio will probably be running for President again in 2020.” While it is true that the Senators may run for president during the next election, appellant must show that it is more than just “theoretically possible” that the situation he currently objects to will repeat itself; rather, he must show a “demonstrated probability” that he will become embroiled again in this same situation. In re Green Mountain
Power Corp., 148 Vt. 333, 335, 532 A.2d 582, 584 (1987). But appellant offers nothing to support his speculation—no legal filings by either Senator and no statements by either Senator to the effect that they will run for president in the future.
¶ 14. A decision by this Court regarding the meaning of the phrase “natural born
Citizen”—and, ultimately, whether the Senators may run for president in Vermont—cannot be based on mere speculation. Appellant’s case is similar to those in which we have found that the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception does not apply. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. at 68,
702 A.2d at 101 (holding that appeal of revocation of nonhospitalization order of mental patient who had later been released under separate order did not meet mootness exception because court’s findings regarding first order were specific to month in which they were made and any future revocations would “be based on new fact patterns”); Dor ia, 156 Vt. at 119-20, 589 A.2d at 319
(finding that mootness exception did not apply in case in which defeated gubernatorial candidate objected to poll conducted by university professor, because candidate did not “show any reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of political poll” in future elections); see also State v. Gundlah, 160 Vt. 193, 196, 624 A.2d 368, 370 (1993) (holding that no
mootness exception applied in journalist’s appeal of contempt-of-court conviction for refusing to testify at prosecution of prison escapee who subsequently pleaded no contest, because “[a] repetition of the fact pattern presented seems highly unlikely and certainly does not rise to a
reasonable expectation.”). ”
“¶ 17. Appellant’s case is moot because it no longer involves an actual controversy, appellant no longer has a legally cognizable interest in its outcome, and it does not meet either exception to the mootness doctrine argued by appellant. At this time, any opinion issued by this Court on the issues raised by appellant would merely be advisory, and would not be within our
constitutional authority to render. See Doria, 156 Vt. at 117, 589 A.2d at 318. We therefore affirm its dismissal by the trial court.”
Thank you Mr. Paige for your efforts.
More here:
Citizen WElls 