Tag Archives: Electoral College Electors

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

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

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

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

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

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

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

California Certificate of Voters is questionable

Do we have any takers?

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

Recall initiatives, impeachment, removal from office?

2004 MN Certificate of Vote

mncertofvote

2008 Election Certificate of Vote, Electoral College Electors, California example, Secretary of State, US Constitution, Governor, Alan Keyes, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, Citizen Wells, Democratic Disaster, December 16, 2008

“Ignorance is not bliss.”

“Knowledge is Power.”

The Citizen Wells blog and many other citizens have been busy for months
informing state officers, election officials, Electoral College Electors
and judges of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama and reminding
those people of their duty under the US Constitution, federal and state
laws. Despite these warnings and reminders, the states have plodded along
based on tradition, ignorance and party politics. Numerous lawsuits in
state and federal courts as well as the US Supreme court should have served
as a huge warning that something was wrong. We need someone like Harry
Truman to remind everyone that “The buck stops here.”

The Electoral College met yesterday and the next step in the process is for
state officials to prepare a certificate of vote and send it to the US Senate
and other locations described below. This is a very important document and in
highest sense of the word a legal document. The format of the document is
left up to the states. Remember, all of those people involved in the election
process are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. However, some of the states
have wording in their documents as a reminder of the obligation to uphold
the various laws.

We will focus on California for multiple reasons.

The following is taken from the 2004 certificate of vote:

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

From the dictionary:

pursuant to

in conformance to or agreement with; “pursuant to our agreement”; “pursuant to the dictates of one’s conscience”  

Now consider the following:

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Citizen Wells letter to Electoral College Electors

The Alan Keyes lawsuit is still alive questioning the eligibility
of Barack Obama.

The CA Secretary of State was contacted by the Citizen Wells blog,
the Democratic Disaster organization and numerous other entities.

It is clear to even a casual observer that Barack Obama is not
eligible to be president and that Electors in CA and throughout
the nation, despite compelling evidence that Obama is not eligible,
plodded along and engaged in the worst kind of party politics, and
violated the US Constitution.

2004 CA Certificate of Vote

cacertofvote2004

Electoral College Vote and subsequent procedures:

4.   Hold the Meeting of Electors
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008), the electors meet in their respective States. Federal law does not permit the States to choose an alternate date for the meeting of electors – it must be held on December 15, 2008. The State legislature may designate where in the State the meeting will take place, usually in the State capital. At this meeting, the electors cast their votes for President and Vice President.

If any electors are unable to carry out their duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State would govern the method for filling vacancies. Any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors must be decided under State law at least six days prior to the meeting of the electors.

See Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

5.   Prepare the Certificate of Vote
Federal law does not govern the general appearance of the Certificate of Vote. The format is determined under the law or custom of the submitting State. The electors must execute six Certificates of Vote. Federal law requires that the Certificates be prepared and authenticated in the following manner:
The Certificates of Vote must contain two distinct lists, one for President and one for Vice President.
The Certificates must list all persons who received electoral votes for President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates must list all persons who received votes for Vice President and the number of electors who voted for each person.
The Certificates do not contain the names of persons who did not receive electoral votes.
Each of the six Certificates of Vote must be signed by all of the electors.

One of the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided to the electors by the Governor must be attached to each of the six Certificates of Vote.

Finally, each of the six pairs of Certificates must be sealed and certified by the electors as containing the list of electoral votes of that State for President and Vice President.
6.   Distribute the Paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment
The six pairs of Certificates must be sent to the designated Federal and State officials as follows:
One is sent by registered mail to:
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President of the United States Senate
The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Two are sent by registered mail to:
Allen Weinstein
Archivist of the United States
National Archives and Records Administration
c/o Office of the Federal Register (NF)
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001

Two are sent to:

The Secretary of State of each State.

One of these is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The other one is to be preserved by the Secretary of State for public inspection for one year.
One is sent to:

The Chief Judge of the Federal District Court located where the electors meet.

It is held subject to the order of the President of the United States Senate or the Archivist of the United States in case the electoral votes fail to reach the Senate or the Archivist.
The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.

We strongly recommend that the sealed pairs of Certificates be taken to the Post Office on December 15, or no later than the morning of December 16, to minimize delays that could occur during the holiday mail season. Some States may find it useful to alert their local Postmaster to the extraordinarily important nature of the mailing. When the paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment have been delivered to the designated Federal and State officials, the States’ Electoral College duties are complete.

Prior to the election this year, the Legal Staff of the Office of the Federal Register will telephone Secretaries of State and other election officials to establish contact with the States and assure the smooth operation of the Electoral College process.

Read more here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_responsibilities.html#vote

 

Obama eligibility, State Electoral College Laws unconstitutional, State Election Laws, US Constitution and Federal Election Laws govern, State officers, State election officials, Election Boards, Electoral College Electors, Judges, Political parties, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Uphold Constitution

I have begun an article that has evolved out of my efforts to understand all of the election laws as
they apply to the 2008 election and Barack Obama’s eligibility. It is clear to me and others that
many State officers, Election officials and judges are not performing their duties under the US
Constitution, Federal Election Law and state laws. It appears that many are guilty of High Crimes and
Misdemeanors
.

What is also self evident to me is that the states and political parrties that require Electoral College
Electors to vote for a certain candidate are violating the letter and spirit of the US Constitution and the
intent of the Founding Fathers.

I intend to finish this article soon. A personal obligation prevents me from finishing today. However,
I would like for those reading this to begin reading more about this topic. Begin thinking about initiating
two broad types of actions:

  • Lawsuits to declare unconstitutional state laws that mandate the way Electors must vote.
  • Petitions or other remedy catalysts to hold state officers, election officials and Electors
    accountable. This can be in the form of recall or impeachment petitions or whatever is most appropriate
    in your state.

Millions are outraged. We must channel our energies into productive efforts.

Interesting reading on powers and duties

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

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.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

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

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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.”

Federal Election Law: 

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

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

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

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

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.” 

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

Obama is not eligible to be POTUS, Electoral College Electors, US Senators, US Representatives, US Supreme Court, Philip J Berg lawsuit appeal, Obama not elected yet

I tried to reach Philip J Berg yesterday and will try again. I have tried
to not bother him more than is necessary. Mr. Berg has spent countless
hours in a just cause to defend and uphold the US Constitution.
The rule of law and the US Constitution must be upheld. Period. This means that no matter who is running for the office of president, mo matter what color their skin is or anything else about them, they must be eligible to be president and must, if challenged, prove their eligibility. Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. He garnered more votes in the general election due to the following reasons:

  • A well orchestrated campaign that was based on preemptive news releases designed to disarm debate, control of information in the MSM and the internet, racism, personal attacks, illegal campaign contributions and voter fraud. Obama mentioning his drug use when he was young and the Fight the Smears site are good examples.
  • Obama stole the Democrat party nomination from Hillary Clinton with the help of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and well documented voter fraud.
  • In one of the most well documented manifestations of racism that I have experienced in my lifetime, 95% of blacks voted for Obama. This, I believe, along with Obama camp tacttics, will set back race relations in this country 20 years.
  • The gullible youth of this country, already influenced by the far left
    wing media and college professors, fell under the spell of this Hitler
    like speaker.
  • No one was allowed to question the “messiah’, Obama. Anyone questioning Obama was viciously attacked. Good examples are the actor Jon Voight and his family and Joe the Plumber.
  • The Obama camp spent record amounts of money to buy this election. Large amounts of contributions are being investigated and we know that Obama has been backed by the likes of George Soros, Chicago and Illinois corruption money and dubious connections in the Middle East and other foreign countries.
  • Obama, the Obama Campaign and the Obama camp, have based their strategies on diversions, lies and deceit. The basis for this can be traced back to the strategies of Saul Alinsky, who cautioned not to alienate groups. Tell people anything you have to to get elected. That is exactly what Obama has done.
  • Focusing on change and using the Bush Administration as a scapegoat were repeated over and over as a brainwashing technique and rallying point. This comes straight from the playbook of Nazi Germany where a glorious new Germany (change) was promised and the Jews (scapegoats) were the cause of  all of Germany’s problems.
  • Threats of racial tensions and race riots were threatened by the Obama camp and supporters. This comes straight from the election strategy playbook of Obama’s cousin Raila Odinga and his ODM party. From the ODM election strategy:

“Ethnic Tensions/Violence as a last Resort”

“Use ODM agents on the ground to engineer ethnic tensions in target areas”

    Even with all of the chicanery above, Obama won just over one fourth of the nation’s counties. Hardly a mandate and a troubling matter for the founding fathers.
    Many people are frustrated that Barack Obama was not vetted, was given
    a free ride by the MSM and is progressing through the 2008 election cycle
    without having to prove his eligibility. The Philip J Berg lawsuit appeal
    is still before the US Supreme Court, awaiting a response from Obama and
    the DNC. Sadly it is still at the mercy of our legal system and the well
    structured requirements for legal standing and burden of proof. However,
    I maintain, that the US Constitution must be upheld and that all
    candidates must be eligible. That includes the swearing in of the new president by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the inauguration.

    The Citizen Wells blog has been providing articles for many weeks on the
    election process and the federal and state laws that control the process.
    Citizen Wells has notified the states by email and in some cases telephone
    conversations of their obligation to uphold the Constitution. This includes
    state officers such as Secretary of State, Attorney General, board of
    elections and most definitely Electoral College Electors. Citizen Wells
    has contacted officials in NC by email and telephone on multiple occasions.
    The states have varying election laws and NC even has a provision for
    qualifying candidates.

    So what can you as a concerned citizen do? Many people have asked what
    evidence they can present to their state Electoral College Electors.
    Citizen Wells will be presenting a series of articles that hopefully
    will help put the issue and evidence into focus. In the meantime, you
    can obtain a list of your states’ Electors by doing an internet search.

    I have listened to several in the media, that I used to respect, make
    comments that are disheartening. It was brought to my attention that Glenn
    Beck, when asked by a listener to respond to the birth certificate issue,
    told the listener to forget about it. How can we just forget about the
    US Constitution!!! Glenn, if you read this, please explain.

    From Jeff Screiber, legal writer for AmericasRight.com:

    “Some, like myself, are conflicted. On one hand, Obama received 63 million votes on Tuesday but, on the other hand, if Berg is correct he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. On one hand, the time for Berg’s line of thinking to be pursued should have been before November 4th so as to avoid mass voter disenfranchisement but, on the other hand, since when have the courts been concerned about voter disenfranchisement? On one hand, the United States Constitution says that Barack Hussein Obama is now president-elect of the United States of America and should be treated as such but, on the other hand, the same document also says that, should Berg be correct, he cannot serve in the position he’s slated to attain in January because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    “Still, to me, the question presented by Berg is warranted and absolutely essential. Barack Obama should present, for independent examination, the “vault” copy of his birth certificate if for no other reason than to put this matter to rest. His failure to provide it does make me believe that he doesn’t have it, or that it doesn’t say what it should. The best way to receive closure, perhaps, is the most unlikely one — that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari in this matter. Unfortunately, as the Court doesn’t like to get involved in political questions such as this, as the Court would be hesitant under any circumstances to countermand the will of 63 million Americans (give or take a few hundred thousand for ACORN), I don’t think it will happen. What we have now, unfortunately, is a widely-accepted “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and, with regard to the presidency, that’s unacceptable.”

    We must not let threats of racial tensions and race riots deter us from
    upholding the Constitution. If we cave in to pressure, we will be one step closer to being a third world country, such as Kenya, controlled by the likes of Raila Odinga, Obama’s cousin, with constant internal battles. We must uphold the US Constitution and the rule of law for all Americans, regardless of race or religion.

    I am asking fellow bloggers and concerned citizens to help defend the
    US Constitution. Contact your state Electoral College Electors and state
    Senators and Representatives. Make sure they are aware of Obama’s
    ineligibility to be president and remind them of the oath they swear to
    uphold the Constitution. Also help spread the word to your fellow citizens.
    All Barack Obama has to do, is follow the lead of John McCain and
    prove he is eligible.

    Stay tuned for more information.

    Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

    http://obamacrimes.com

    2008 Presidential Election, Obama Indonesian, Obama stole Nomination, Obama attempts to steal election, US Constitution, Electoral College Electors, Chaos, Anarchy, Electors must uphold Constitution

    US Constitution

    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.”

    2008 Presidential Election

    Phase II

    An Indonesian citizen, an illegal alien, with strong ties to corruption
    in Chicago, Illinois and the Middle East, has apparently won the US
    general election. Barack Obama, who stole the nomination for the Democrat
    Party using tactics of diversions, lies, illegal campaign donations,
    voter fraud and help from idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, is
    trying to steal the election. State officials, lacking in integrity
    and knowledge of the US Constitution, and federal and state laws, allowed
    Obama to remain on the ballot despite warnings and compelling evidence
    that Obama is an Indonesian citizen, and no legal evidence that Obama is
    a US citizen. These state officials will have a day of reckoning and will
    be subject to removal from office and/or prosecution.

    Now we come to the safeguards put in place by our wise founding fathers.
    In the forefront is the Electoral College. The general election does not
    elect a president. It echoes the will of the general population and serves
    as a guideline for the Electoral College Electors to vote. State laws vary
    on how the Electors must vote. However, two things are certain:

    • The Electoral College was set up to protect the American public from
      unwise choices and in the words of Delegate Gerry on July 19, 1787:

    “The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”

    • Electoral College Electors swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Voting for a presidential candidate, faced with compelling evidence that the candidate is not eligible to be president, would be a severe violation of constitutional law. The US Constitution rules. 24 potential Electors have stated that they were filing suit demanding evidence of Obama’s eligibility.

    What happens next.

    Philip J Berg still has his appeal before the US Supreme Court. Mr. Berg
    has the burden of proof and standing. This is a safeguard built into
    lawsuits. Philip J Berg has done an outstanding job of trying to prevent
    a constitutional crisis. The Democrat party, the states and federal judges
    have put aside his plea to uphold the Constitution. The Judges, restrained
    by lawsuit protocol, have some excuse. This does not relieve anyone
    charged with upholding the Constitution of their responsibility.

    More lawsuits and voting challenges will occur, more Electoral College
    Electors will become involved and I strongly believe this country will
    be thrust into chaos, if not anarchy, for several months. Some combination
    of the Supreme Court, Federal court, state courts and Electors demanding
    proof of citizenship will come into play.

    What can you do?

    Read up on the election process, starting on this blog, and demand that your State Electoral College Electors uphold the Constitution. Follow the efforts of Philip J Berg and others to demand that the US Constitution be upheld. Regardless of any concession speeches by John McCain, we cannot allow Obama, an illegal alien, to be elected and innaugurated.

     Election Law explained and Electoral College Electors

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

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

     

    power

    Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, US Constitution, Lawsuits, Philip J Berg, State lawsuits, Electoral College Electors, State election officials, Uphold Constitution

    US Constitution


    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.”


    Election laws vary from state to state.
    The states control the election process up to the vote by the Electoral
    college. States accept the nominee of the major political party and claim
    that they have no jurisdiction to qualify or exclude.
    However, Citizen Wells’ position is that the US Constitution clearly
    defines eligibilty for the presidency and the Constitution rules.


    UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW


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


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


    US Constitution, Federal Election Laws, State Election Laws


    Legal Notice. NC law cited on ineligible or disqualified


    Article on eligibility


    Article on Electoral College


    Caution to state election officials, Electors


    Warning sent to Secretary of State, election officials of all states


    There is compelling evidence that Obama is ineligible to be president and
    no proof that he is. There is an obligation and duty to uphold the
    Constitution. The states indicate they are powerless to remove someone
    from the ballot. I have read no law that prohibits a state from removing
    someone from the ballot and some states have provisions for removing
    unqualified candidates.


    Therefore, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives power to the people to challenge candidates for removal. Many have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. This includes, but is not limited to, Electoral College Electors.


    In addition to Philip J Berg’s lawsuit in federal court that is now before
    the Supreme Court, there are numerous state lawsuits and now lawsuits
    initiated by Electoral College Electors. Consider the following:


    “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:   Vice presidential Candidate filing lawsuit against Obama


    Contact: Steve Marquis
    Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
    Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org
    Web site address: http://peoplespassions.org


     Wiley S. Drake, Sr.  wileydrake@hotmail.com


     


    Vice presidential Candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. to file in court asking to
    de-certify Barack Obama because he has refused to release proof of being a Natural Born Citizen, thereby disqualifying Obama in his bid for the Office of President.


    The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI.  Related lawsuits HI, US District.


    As part of this effort, this group of citizens from states across the union made an outreach to the whole presidential slate asking each candidate for president and vice president to offer up a certified copy of their birth certificates and any related candidate declarations to be placed in a library made available to the public via a non-partisan web site. 


    At least one VP candidate Wiley S. Drake Sr. went the next step and agreed to file a lawsuit of his own to demand the disqualification of Barack Obama unless he can prove status as a ”Natural Born Citizen” as the constitution and federal statues demand and define.


    In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort.  Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.


    Contact: Steve Marquis
    Telephone Number: 425-698-7084
    Email Address: peoplesvoice@peoplespassions.org


    Wiley S. Drake, Sr.  wileydrake@hotmail.com


    Read more here:


    http://peoplespassions.org/Press_Release_08_10_31.htm


    Citizen Wells has contacted Peoples Passions and will keep you informed on the progress of the legal actions.


    Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:


    http://obamacrimes.com