H. Brooke Paige V State of Vermont petition for rehearing, June 13, 2014, Obama eligibility, US Supreme Court, Obama not natural born citizen, Question of eligibility not moot
“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
“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
H. Brooke Paige has filed a motion for rehearing with the US Supreme Court.
“The election of President Barack Obama does not render the question of his eligibility moot. In addition to the authorities cited by petitioner in the petition for a writ of certiorari, these authorities also demonstrate that the passing of the election and that Mr. Obama will not run in the future does not render this case moot”
H. Brooke Paige V Vermont petition denied , May 19, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states continue to abrogate duties
“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
Today, May 19, 2014, the US Supreme Court has once again abrogated their duty. They decided to not 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.
Sadly we have no functioning Supreme Court, no separation of powers.
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.
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.
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.”
H. Brooke Paige V Vermont et al US Supreme Court case update, April 24, 2014, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen status challege, Marbury V Madison revisited
“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
“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 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.
The FEC recently ruled in Hassan that since he was not a natural born citizen, he was ineligible for federal matching funds. That case was simple. Hassan admitted that he was not born in the US. The FEC may soon be confronted with a more complex ruling because the definition of natural born citizen has not been clarified. The US Supreme Court has failed to do their duty.
“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?”
Obama resignation or arrest, Douglas Vogt McInnish V Chapman Paige V Vermont US Supreme Court cases, Arpaio Zullo investigation results, Obama not natural born citizen?, Treasonous activities by Obama et al
“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
It does indeed look like the chickens are coming home to roost.
High profile individuals such as Barrister Michael Shrimpton believe that Obama should resign.
Will Obama resign before he is arrested ?
There is too much evidence that Obama was not born in the US and zero evidence that proves he was.
Up to and beyond early 2008 there is numerous compelling circumstantial evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.
The stakes have gotten much higher.
It is no longer just a matter of Obama being removed from office.
Apparently treason and treasonous activities have been engaged in by the Obama camp.
From MMD Newswire March 28, 2014.
“Compelling Evidence of the Forgery of Obama’s Birth Certificate Lodged with the United States Supreme Court, Case No.: 13-1158”
“Douglas Vogt has lodged with the United States Supreme Court his compelling forensic evidence that the Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, II is indisputably a forgery.
That forensic evidence is contained in Vogt’s 95 page Public and 75 page Sealed Affidavits. Barack Hussein Obama, II – at his White House Press Conference on April 27, 2011 – released his Birth Certificate to prove that he was Constitutionally-eligible to be President. The lodging of the Affidavits accompanied Vogt’s filing of a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court which has been assigned Case No: 13-1158. That Petition seeks review of the refusal of the Federal District Court to refer Vogt’s Affidavits to a federal Grand Jury as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a).
Rule 6(a) states: “When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.” Vogt’s Petition argues that there can be no higher “public interest” than the issue of whether Barack Hussein Obama, II, has foisted a forged Birth Certificate upon the Citizens of the United States. Accordingly, the Petition argues, the lower federal court has breached its Congressionally-imposed duty to “summon” a Grand Jury to hear Vogt’s well-founded, forensic proof of the forgery of Obama’s Birth Certificate.”
We expect McInnish V Chapman to be sent to the SCOTUS.
The opinions from the Alabama Supreme Court are significant for 2 important reasons.
Chief Justice Roy Moore in his extensive dissenting opinion made the strong case that the secretary of state, once confronted by a potential deficiency in a presidential candidate’s qualifications, has a duty to investigate.
Justice Parker, also dissenting, stated that there are reasons to suspect Obama’s eligibility.
“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.”
H. Brooke Paige has a case before the SCOTUS challenging Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen because Obama’s father was Kenyan and therefore British.
And of course we are awaiting the news conference from Mike Zullo regarding the Arpaio Zullo investigation into Obama’s records.
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.””
“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.”
Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???
“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
“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…Citizen Wells
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”
“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison
I received the email from H. Brooke Paige last night.
“VT Sup Court ruled today. Interesting decision that will allow us to
proceed to SCOTUS.”
Instead of expediting this case the lower court and VT Supreme Court dragged their feet thus making their decisions after the election.
In essence, the case is moot because Obama is already president and cannot run again.
“BURGESS, J. Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige appeals a decision by the Washington Superior Court, Civil Division, granting a motion to dismiss by the State and its Secretary of State James Condos.[1]
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds because injury to his life, liberty, and property confers standing, as do Vermont election statutes, 17 V.S.A. §§ 2603 and 2617. Plaintiff
also asserts that the past presidential election does not render his case moot because this Court can still provide declaratory relief. We disagree, and dismiss the appeal as moot.”
“¶ 6. The central question now before this Court on appeal is whether the mootness doctrine bars review of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff argues this case is not moot because the Court can provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and asserts that a controversy continues through plaintiff’s efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. Plaintiff also contends that this case satisfies two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. First, plaintiff anticipates that a situation involving an ineligible presidential candidate is capable of repetition yet evades review because President Obama may run for a third term if Congress repeals the Twenty-Second Amendment, or other presidential candidates not born of two U.S. citizens are likely to run
for president in the future. Second, plaintiff asserts that he suffers negative collateral consequences as a result of Barack Obama’s presidency that impact his life, liberty, and property.
¶ 7. The case is moot. Neither exception advocated by plaintiff applies here. Accordingly, this Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”
“¶ 9. 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. President Obama is also unable to seek re-election.
U.S. Const. amend. XXII. The issuance of an advisory opinion assessing the merits of plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative. See In re Keystone
Dev. Corp., 2009 VT 13, ¶ 7, 186 Vt. 523, 973 A.2d 1179 (mem.) (explaining that this Court lacks authority to render an advisory opinion).”
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.”
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.”
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?”
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%).”
Vermont Supreme Court appeal on Obama natural born citizen status, H. Brooke Paige standing, Attorney Todd Daloz flawed arguments, Standing non issue, Constitution and duties ignored
“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
“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
“The Elections division protects the integrity of campaigning and elections in Vermont.”…Vermont Secretary of State website
H. Brooke Paige, whose case challenging Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency was rejected by Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent on November 2012, appealed his case before the following Vermont Supreme Court Justices on April 23, 2013.
Honorable Paul Reiber, Chief Justice
Honorable John Dooley, Associate Justice
Honorable Marilyn Skoglund, Associate Justice
Honorable Brian Burgess, Associate Justice
Honorable Beth Robinson, Associate Justice
Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz represented Secretary of State James Condos.
The issue of standing dominated the hearing. Mr. Paige presented a clear definition of natural born citizen. His documentation was minimal. A further analysis of his argument will be provided later.
It is clear that the majority of citizens, including judges, attorneys and politicians do not understand what a Natural Born Citizen is as included in the
Constitution for presidential eligibility.
It is furthermore clear that status quo is passing the buck instead of fulfilling implied and explicit constitutional duties.
It is also clear that Secretary of State James Condos and other secretaries of state and election officials, when confronted by similar challenges about natural born citizen status should have requested clarification from their Attorney Generals and the courts.
Courts have shirked their responsibility, from the US Supreme Court to the state courts.
Marbury v Madison makes this clear.
“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?
Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz makes the argument that Secretary of State James Condos has no power or duty to vet a candidate.
Oh really?
The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events leading up to the Electoral College vote.
US Constitution
Article II
Section 1
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”
Manner of voting
§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.
All state election officials swear an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.
Article VI of the US Constitution.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”
Some states explicitly provide for challenges by the secretary of state.
GEORGIA CODE
“*** Current Through the 2012 Regular Session ***
TITLE 21. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2. ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2012)
§ 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy
shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.
Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by
filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public
office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in
writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on
the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.
(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the
Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike
such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots,
a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such
candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”
Explicit or implied,
Secretary of State James Condos took an oath to uphold the US Constitution.
One of the justices asked if all of the state election officials should be required to vet all of the candidates. That was not the question at hand.
In this case, the Vermont Secretary of State was notified of the problem and refused to act.
Once again, an American courtroom, despite the caution from Marybury v Madison, shirked their duty and tried their best to make this about standing.
Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!
In fact, at least one justice questioned this.
There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.
1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.
2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.
3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.
Attorney Daloz tries to obfuscate and minimize the VT elections statutes in regard to Mr. Paige having standing.
Quite the contrary. They are crystal clear.
§ 2603. Contest of elections
“(a) The result of an election for any office, other than for the general assembly, or public question may be contested by any legal voter entitled to vote on the office or public question to be contested.
(b) A contest is initiated by filing a complaint with a superior court alleging:
(1) that errors were committed in the conduct of the election or in count or return of votes, sufficient to change the ultimate result;
(2) that there was fraud in the electoral process, sufficient to change the ultimate result; or
(3) that for any other reason, the result of the election is not valid.
(c) The complaint shall be filed within 15 days after the election in question, or if there is a recount, within 10 days after the court issues its judgment on the recount. In the case of candidates for state or congressional office, for a presidential election, or for a statewide public question, the complaint shall be filed with the superior court, Washington County. In the case of any other candidate or public question, the complaint shall be filed with the superior court in any county in which votes were cast for the office or question being challenged.
(d) The Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to contests of elections, except that such cases shall be placed upon a special calendar, and hearings shall be scheduled on a priority basis, as public policy demands that such questions be resolved promptly.
(e) After hearing, the court shall issue findings of fact and a judgment, which shall supersede any certificate of election previously issued. If the court finds just cause, the court shall grant appropriate relief, which may include, without limitation, ordering a recount, or ordering a new election. If during the hearing the court receives credible evidence of criminal conduct, the court shall order a transcript of all or part of the testimony to be forwarded to the proper state’s attorney. If a new election is ordered, the court shall set a date for it, after consulting with the secretary of state; in ordering a new election, the court shall have authority to issue appropriate orders, either to provide for special cases not covered by law, or to supersede provisions of law which may conflict with the needs of the particular situation.
(f) The court shall send a certified copy of its findings of fact and judgment to the secretary of state.”
Here are segments from the court proceedings that relate to Mr. Paige’s argument and compliance and attorney Daloz attempting to prove that Mr. Paige has no standing. Attorney Daloz even further tries to dilute the standing issue by implying that congress should be the arbiter. The states control the election process until the certification of the electoral votes by congress. Only then can congress question eligibility. They have failed to do so.
The entire proceedings can be heard here.
Mr. Paige’s inaccurate statements about Obama’s birth certificate will for the moment be assumed to be based on ignorance and not agenda. This will be explored later.
Obama eligibility appeal filed in Judge Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court, Attorney Larry Klayman, Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to verify, Moore expressed doubts about Obama
“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
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.
Roy Moore was elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last November, a decade after he defied a federal order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.
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.
Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C.-watch dog Judicial Watch and now head of Freedom Watch, filed the appeal Tuesday with the Alabama Supreme Court, asking for oral arguments.
“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.
Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and his integrity and legal acumen.”
“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”
The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.
In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama might not have been qualified for Oval Office.
The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of state to verify the eligibility of candidates.
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.
‘Affirmative duty’
Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected.”
The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”
McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.
Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb. 2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in Chapman’s absence.
Thompson, the brief says, “represented that her office would not investigate the legitimacy of any candidate, thus violating her duties under the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.”
As WND reported, Arpaio and his team concluded that Obama’s long-form birth certificate was a computer-generated forgery.
Klayman, in a previous brief, argued the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”
In his new appeal, Klayman points, as an example, to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s rejection of Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires the president to be at least 35.
In his conclusion, Klayman argues the fact that the election is over does not make the case moot.
“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the legitimacy of the de facto President, a question which lies at the very heart of our American Constitutional Government, were left unresolved for want of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate.”
If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is made that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions will have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety of Alabama citizens stilled.”
If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real concerns.
‘Certain documentation’
In an earlier step in the case one year ago, before a panel of Alabama Supreme Court justices, one justice raised doubts about Obama’s eligibility.
The justices denied a petition filed by McInnish seeking to require Obama submit an original birth certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.
“Mclnnish has 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 Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
The “certain documentation” is the findings of Arpaio’s investigation.
“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explained. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court.
Citizen WElls 