Tag Archives: Electoral College

2012 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Questions and answers

2012 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Questions and answers

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

Reprinted from Citizen Wells December 13, 2008.

Presidential Election

ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

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

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

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA

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

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the
Citizen Wells blog. Every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the content. Readers are encouraged to visit source
material such as the US Constitution, Federal Election law and
state laws.

Obama inauguration, January 20, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama not eligible, Treason, US Constitution, Natural Born Citizen, Kenya, Indonesia, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, US Supreme Court, Electoral college, FBI arrest, Citizens arrest

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

Chief Justice Roberts:

You have been forewarned and informed of the eligibility
issues surrounding Obama. Such excuses as the people have
chosen are meritless in regard to your responsibility to
uphold the US Constitution. The Electoral College was
designed to protect the American people from just such
a constitutional crisis. You are certainly aware that
Obama has spent huge sums of money and employed an army
of attorneys to prevent being held accountable to the
US Constitution and American people.

Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United
States under the natural born citizen provision of the US
Constitution and until credible proof is provided, is not
even a US citizen.

Chief Justice Roberts, answer this question
for me and the American public.

If you swear in Barack Obama and Obama takes the oath,
can you explain to me and the American people why one of
the following should not occur?

  • Both you and Obama should be arrested by the FBI or the
    military for treason and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
  • Both you and Obama should be arrested for the same offenses
    under the citizen’s arrest provision of common law and
    Washington DC statutes.
  • Both you and Obama should be Impeached for the same offenses.

We have been waiting.

We are still waiting.

** Addendum **

The following comments on this blog are so revealing of the
judicial travesty taking place and the outrage that typical
Americans are experiencing, that I was compelled to add them
to this post.

Commenter Therese:

“Let me add to this I no longer consider we have a government after
January 20,2009. I will no longer look to this government to solve
our problems since it clearly and deliberately turned its back on
the American people.

Not until every elected and appointed official on this current slate
is publicly exposed, removed. arrested, tried, and sent to jail for
misrepresentation, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and treason
will I ever again acknowledge this government.

Hence forward the nine Supreme court judges, all the Senate, all
Congress, and all judges who dismissed lawsuits against Obama on the
basis of standing are proven criminals who are getting away with more
crimes against the American people. They need to be named. Their
crimes need to belisted after their names, We need to let them know
not only will we never vote for them in another term, we will do
everything in our power to take them out of office before their term
ends.

Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?

Commenter Reese in response to above:

““Just what was the January 14, 2009 meeting between Justice Sh*t head
Roberts and Obama and Biden about? How to make more deals to rape the
Constitution and rip off America and get away with it?”

To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement.
A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the
Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s
flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where
Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts
and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for
Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship
ineligibility.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice
Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances?
Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate
in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under
the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or
with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias
or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

When a defendant in a case before the supreme court decided to fly one
of the judges, in the company jet, up for a few rounds of golf, and the
press reported it (because the judge in question was particularly hated
by the reporters), the judge was asked to “abstain” from the proceedings.
The court’s response was “get bent”. Do you remember the impeachment
proceedings held by congress? No? There weren’t any.

If a judge can take a bribe, in public, and suffer absolutely no
repercussions (not even waste a day in a congressional hearing), what
reason is there to not “take things into his office”?

If it wasnt for the huge amount of potentially ill gotten dollars obama
has been spreading around he would be a poor second for dog catcher. Now
it looks like he is buying supreme court judges, there is no way the
truth about him will surface if he has bought all parties that can shed
some truth on the fiction he is spewing.

He will be untouchable.

This is not how the system is supposed to work. I feel sorry for America
and the dim witted dolts that fell for his lies.”

Citizen Wells letter to Electors, Electoral College, Uphold US Constitution, December 15, 2008 Electors vote, Obama is not eligible, Demand proof, 2008 Election, Election laws, Political Party pledges, State laws unconstitutional

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778

To: 2008 Presidential Election Electoral College Electors

From: Citizen Wells

Electors,
You are being put into the uncomfortable position of having to
question your vote for president of the US. In the past, this
was a much simpler decision. Party politics has always been an
issue but in the past, after the general election, the rules
were fairly simple for you. You voted based on the party pledges
and state rules without giving it much thought. The duty to vote
in the manner as directed by the US Constitution has always been
there, but you never had to be concerned about violating it.

The 2008 Election year is unique in American History. Early in
2008 questions arose about the eligibility of John McCain and
Barack Obama to be president. John McCain put to rest any doubts
by presenting to Congress a vault copy of his birth certificate.
As the year progressed and more was learned about Obama’s history
and evasive attitude, more people began questioning Obama’s
eligibility. Several attempts were made on various websites to put
the issue to rest by presenting copies of what were alleged to be
COLB, Certificate of Live Birth. A COLB is a record of birth and
is not a legal verification of location of birth and other birth
facts.

On August 21, 2008, Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia
Federal Court demanding that Barack Obama provide proof of eligibility.
Mr. Berg provided many details surrounding Obama’s past such as
Obama’s probable birth in Kenya, travel forbidden to American
citizens in Pakistan and Obama’s school records and other records’
that Obama has kept hidden from scrutiny. Many lies and deception
have been initiated by the Obama camp. One of the more interesting
ones is an AP report that tried to insinuate that Hawaiian Health
Department officials stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They
did not state that.

Many other lawsuits have developed from the Berg lawsuit including
the Alan Keyes lawsuit in CA. Obama has spents hundreds of thousands
of dollars and employed multiple law firms to avoid proving his
eligibility. Lawsuits are still alive in the US Supreme Court and
many state courts. Lawsuits place the burden of proof on the
plaintiff and require very strict legal wording.

Why are you being put in the position of questioning your vote and
complying with the US Constitution? The Constitution gives the power
and control over elections to the states through the vote of the
Electoral College. State laws vary greatly but to various degrees
define how candidates get on the ballot and other rules controlling
the election process. Some states define the method of challenging
or ensuring that a candidate is qualified. Regardless, the states
do have the power and the duty to ensure that a presidential
candidate is qualified to take office.

Why are the states not requiring that a presidential candidate is
qualified? The short answer is that they are passing the buck. The
long answer is that tradition, politics and political parties are
driving the process when in fact political parties are given no
power or authority by the US Constitution. The typical answer
given by a secretary of state or other state election official is
that they get their cue from the political party as to who gets
put on the ballot and some even state that it is the responsibility
of the party to vet the candidate. While I see no problem getting
names for ballots from the political party, that does not remove
the Constitutional duty of the states. This is a blatant violation
of duty by state officers, election officials and judges and could
fall under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To make matters worse, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in
regard to several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be
president, has not addressed three distinct constitutional issues
that need to either be ruled on or clarified:

  • Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
    born citizen.
  • Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
    College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
  • Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
    to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
    the states ignoring this?

No one wants to take responsibility. Why? Many of the reasons are
obvious. Party politics, fear of offending someone, fear of riots,
ignorance, tradition.

Electors. You are in a unique position. We have a system of checks and
balances in this country that has served us well over the centuries.
Our Founding Fathers had witnessed the monarchies and totalitarian
regimes prevalent in much of their world. They did not want that. That
is why we have executive, legislative and judicial branches and that
is also why we have an Electoral College system of voting for president.
The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two
primary goals.To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from
being dominated by a few larger states with higher population densities
and to prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed
populace.

Consider the following quotes:
Alexander Hamilton echoed the thoughts of many of the founding
fathers when he wrote in the Federalist Papers: “afraid a tyrant could
manipulate public opinion and come to power.”
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”
Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

Electors, you have a duty to uphold the US Constitution. As Harry Truman
said, “The buck stop here.” You can blindly follow party propaganda or
you can act as concerned Americans and do the right thing. What do other
concerned Americans expect from you? That you make certain that the
candidate that you vote for is qualified under the US Constitution,
nothing more, nothing less.

This is so simple a school child can understand it. Why would Barack
Obama spend so much money, time and resources to avoid proving his
eligibilty. The answer is obvious. Obama is not qualified. However,
all you have to do is demand that he provide legitimate, legal, proof
and you can rest easy knowing you have done your job, your duty to
this country and the US Constitution.

One person, one vote can make a difference:

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Those Electors helped save the Union and the world.

Electoral College Questions and Answers

2008 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Democratic Disaster, Questions and answers

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

Presidential Election

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

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

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

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

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

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

Are Electors required to vote according to Popular Vote?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

State Law Example: Pennsylvania

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

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

Electors helped save the Union

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

If anyone has any further questions they can be asked on this
blog or go to:

http://www.democratic-disaster.com/


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the
Citizen Wells blog. Every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the content. Readers are encouraged to visit source
material such as the US Constitution, Federal Election law and
state laws.

2008 election, Obama not eligible, States have power to challenge, US Constitution, US Supreme Court, Federal Election Law, State laws, Secretary of State, Election Boards, Congress, Electoral College, Berg Donofrio Wrotnowski lawsuits, Hold accountable

The founding fathers set up guidelines for presidential elections and laid out the rules in the US
Constitution and subsequently Federal Election laws. There are two aspects that stand out about the
rules. First, the eligibility requirement for president is defined. But even more clear than
presidential eligibility, the powers given to the states are clearly defined. The states are given
control of the election process through the vote by the Electoral College Electors. The state
election laws vary widely and regardless of how explicit and detailed they are written, they all
fall under the guidelines and rules of the US Constitution. The ultimate objective is to elect a
qualified president. All laws and procedures must work to that end. The Electoral College Electors
are bound to uphold the US Constitution and therefore must only vote for a constitutionally
qualified candidate.

State laws have evolved out of tradition and indeed tradition drives many procedures and opinions
about allowing candidates on ballots and proceeding through the election process to being chosen
by Electoral College Electors. Allowing candidates to appear on ballots from instructions by major
political parties has evolved into many variations by state. The political parties are given no
special powers in the US Constitution. It is clear that each state has the full power and obligation
to ensure that a candidate running for president is qualified to hold office. To do otherwise
threatens to disenfranchise a myriad of voters. The citizens of each state expect state officers and
election officials to protect them and their votes.

It is clear that the states have been given the power to control the election process through the
Electors vote. Some states have recognized their power to challenge eligibility in state laws. It is also
clear in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of
Rights, that any powers not reserved for the federal government or the states, are reserved for the
people. Any state taking the position, incorrectly, that they have no power to challenge the
credentials of a presidential candidate have relinquished that power to their citizens.

One thing is clear from the research I have done. There is much confusion and misunderstanding about
the election process and responsibilities. As stated above, tradition is a huge driving force. I have
reviewed the US Constitution, Federal Election law and many state election statutes. I have also read
legal opinions and writings from constitutional experts. Below are federal and state laws and the major
players who have responsibilities in governing elections, state officers and election officials, judges
and congressmen.

Read about the US Constitution, Federal Law and Electors

Laws applicable in NC

Examples of state laws that address the issue of challenging eligibility

North Carolina

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

Georgia

§ 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.”

Florida

102.168  Contest of election.–

“(1)  Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.”

Examples of ignorance, bias and tradition in positions of responsibility:

Connecticut Secretary of State
Susan Bysiewicz

“The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated that there is no doubt that the Democratic
presidential candidate was born there and that the state’s health department posseses Senator Obama’s
original birth certificate. This is now a matter of public record.”

What the Hawaii Health Officials said

Judge Surrick ruling on Philip J Berg case
Constitutional expert Ellis Washington responds:

“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.”

Read more

Senator Mel Martinez of Florida

The following is from a response from Senator Mel Martinez of Florida. Mr. Martinez clearly has no
understanding of the US Constitution  or election laws. The scary part is that Congress is part of the
last checks and balances during the election. Congress has the power to sertify the Electoral College
votes and challenge them.

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

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

Article II of the Constitution provides that “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

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

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

I contacted Senator Martinez’ office this morning and no one has responded. If Senator Martinez would like
to respond, we welcome that. If you are a citizen of the state of Florida you may want to contact Senator
Martinez and voice your concerns over his lack of knowledge. I am certain he is not the only member of
Congress to be informed.
What we have here is a failure to communicate and a real mess.

What can we do?

Continue to inform all of those involved in the election process of their legal duties and demand that
Barack Obama prove legally that he is eligible.

For those state officers, election officials, Electors, judges and congressmen that fail to do their
job and uphold the US Constitution, hold them accountable. State laws vary but their are usually remedies
available such as recall, impeachment and dismissal. Don’t forget, you have more power than is normally
recognized. The Tenth Amendment gives us plenty of power. Also, make sure you share information with
others and ask them to do the same.

God help us if the US Supreme Court fails us