Tag Archives: Judges

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

Florida election corruption bias incompetence, Secretary of State, Judges, Voeltz v Obama treatment obstruction of justice, Obama eligibility case ignored obfuscated and delayed

“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

“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

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer.”…Justice Boyd, STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE, FL, August 10, 1972

I was asked recently why I had not included Florida with Alabama and Vermont supreme court challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

The reasons are simple.

First, no eligibility hearing has yet been scheduled for the FL Supreme Court. Why has the Voeltz v Obama eligibility challenge not reached the FL Supreme Court, unlike AL and VT?

Some combination of corruption, bias and incompetence within the executive, judicial and perhaps even legislative bodies of the State of Florida.

Secretary of State duty.

From the Florida statutes.

“97.012 Secretary of State as chief election officer.–The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state, and it is his or her responsibility to:

(1) Obtain and maintain uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws.”

OATH OF OFFICE
(Art. II. § 5(b), Fla. Const.)

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

THE STATES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIMARIES, GENERAL ELECTION AND EVENTS THROUGH 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.”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

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.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

The FL Secretary of State has a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

This includes the US Constitution and US Code.

Furthermore.

Justice Boyd in STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972 states:

“As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.”

Response from FL elected officials and judges.

From Citizen Wells February 1, 2012.

A  challenger discovered this recently.

“Below and attached is a scanned copy of the letter I just received from the Secretary of State, AKA Florida Supervisor of Elections, in response to the Obama Ballot Challenge I filed 9 January 2012 with him and Attorney General Pam Bundi. The Constitution of the State of Florida (1838) and as amended through 2008 and by adoption of the 2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook (October 2011) the State of Florida has accepted the qualifications for President and Vice President listed therein, based solely on the Certifications of Qualifications from the Political Parties.Read carefully, looks like we have no protection from fraud by either Party. Still waiting for response from the Attorney General.

Vern H. Goding, Ret. OathKeeper.
Melbourne Village, Fl 32904″

Response from Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel.

“After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/fl-primary-opens-door-to-obama-eligibilty-challenge-florida-statutes-allow-contest-10-day-window-circuit-court-obama-natural-born-citizen-deficiency/

Read the entire response from Assistant General Counsel Holland here:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/sunshine-state-shenanigans

Voeltz v Obama was presented before 2 courts in FL. I will leave it to the reader to decide what combination of corruption, bias and incompetence applies to the judges.

Michael Voeltz filed a contest of election in Leon County Circuit Court on February 15, 2012.

A motion to dismiss from Obama and Secretary of State Ken Detzner was granted by Judge Terry Lewis on June 29, 2012.

The entire response from Judge Lewis will not be evaluated at this time. However, enough of the judge’s suspect reasoning will be presented to raise eyebrows.

Judge Lewis presents a flawed description of Natural Born Citizen and quotes a flawed decision in Akeny v Governor of Indiana. That is scary enough.

The next example is clearly more black and white.

Judge Lewis quotes a small portion of Cherry v Stone from August 4, 1972. This is not the better ruling to quote and not the latest.

From STATE EX REL. SHEVIN v. STONE from August 10, 1972.
“The resign law is not Secretary Stone’s to administer by such a determination, any more than the campaign spending law. His charge under the constitution and statute does not extend to the substance or correctness or enforcement of a sworn compliance with the law — with “matters in pais”, as it were. Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end. Any challenge to the correctness of the candidate’s statement of compliance is for appropriate judicial determination upon any challenge properly made, as here.”

Justice Boyd adds

“I agree with the majority opinion disposing of Miller and Wright.

As a general rule the law contemplates the Secretary of State is to accept qualifying instruments from anyone who swears he is eligible and pays the qualifying fees. This rule should not be construed to require the Secretary of State to place the name of a person on the ballot who is obviously not eligible and when such lack of eligibility is known to him as the state’s chief elections officer. The burden of litigating the matter should be upon the one seeking to qualify.

The Attorney General is properly bringing this action as the Attorney for the State. Few matters in a democracy can be of greater importance to the people than those relating to qualifications of candidates for public office.”

From above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

No oath, no written compliance with the law was provided by Obama.

Plaintiff Voeltz took the case to the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Leon County.

On December 20, 2012 Judge Kevin Carroll dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Judge Carroll states that “the Electoral College met and voted on December 17, 2012.”

“this court cannot now alter the Electoral College process.”

How convenient, the state of FL dragged out this process instead of acting and expediting it.

Judge Carroll also states:

“the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida does not have jurisdiction to determine the issue of qualification for the Office of President of the United States, particularly at this date in the process.”

Judge Carroll paraphrases “Miracle on 34th Street”, that the US government recognizes Obama as president and again with the element of elapsed time as if that was prohibitive.

Judge Carroll is wrong and should be impeached!

Let’s go through some of the references to the president and candidates in general not being qualified. There are mechanisms in place for removing them from office.

At the state level, the federal government gives the states the power to control elections through the submission of the electoral count to congress.

The State election officials are not prohibited from questioning eligibility.

Even in FL, as noted above:

“Once the candidate states his compliance, under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the office is at an end.”

From 2 southeastern states:

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.”

Electoral college vote.

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

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

Congress certifies electoral count.

“If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.”

After the certification, the Constitution reveals the protocol for dealing with a president or candidate who is not qualified.

AMENDMENT XX

“Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.”

AMENDMENT XXV

“Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.”

As you see, there are laws and procedures in place from early in the nomination process and past inauguration to remedy a president or candidate who is not eligible.

It is a damn shame that we have judges and election officials in Florida and other states who shirk their constitutional duties and make such idiotic statements.

For more information and commentary visit.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/

Advertisements

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, Supreme Court nomination, Judges, extreme liberal judge, Barack Obama statements, Youtube video recording, US Senate approval, examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record, out of the mainstream rejected

This was posted by commenter LM on this blog:
“Stop Obama From Nominating a LIBERAL Supreme Court Justice

As you have probably heard by now, Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter has announced that he is retiring from the Court. And, as you would expect, President Barack Obama is already considering several extreme liberals to replace him.

But that doesn’t mean Obama will GET his choice of an extreme liberal judge — we CAN stop him!

HELP US STOP BARACK OBAMA FROM NOMINATING AN
EXTREME LIBERAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
SELECT HERE NOW TO FAX THE SENATE!

How can we stop a radical left-wing nominee from being approved by the U.S. Senate? Simple: By using President Obama’s own words against any such nominee, delivered directly to the ears of each and every Senator!

On January 31, 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama sent out a detailed, in-depth podcast about President Bush’s nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. (You can hear it in full here.)

In this recording, Barack Obama made the following statements: “There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, and that the Senate should only examine whether or not the judge is intellectually capable… I DISAGREE WITH THIS VIEW… meaningful advice and consent includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record.”

President Barack Obama HIMSELF said that Senators should do MORE than just “pass on through” any judicial nominee that a President sends for confirmation. And, if that nominee is deemed to be “out of the mainstream” of “average America,” Obama declared that such a nominee should be rejected.

THAT is what we need to tell EVERY SINGLE U.S. SENATOR — that the American people do NOT want any Supreme Court nominee to be approved who stands for ANY radical, left-wing agenda!

So what do the potential nominees look like — the ones who are being put forth right now as the most likely to be picked by Barack Obama for a seat on the highest court in the land?

Simply put: they are all radical leftists who stand outside of the mainstream of average America!
Incoming solicitor general Elena Kagan, formerly the dean of the Harvard Law School, prohibited the military from recruiting on campus for a year. She has vigorously opposed the de-funding of taxpayer-funded clinics that promote abortions, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do NOT want their tax dollars to fund abortion providers.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Diane Wood ruled AGAINST bans on partial-birth abortion in cases involving legislation from Wisconsin and Illinois.
Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who stated on a panel at Duke University Law School in 2005 that it is JUDGES who make policy, not legislators. And in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision-making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
Cass Sunstein, a law professor friend of the president and his current nominee to be head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership, a ban on hunting, animal rights and what has been characterized as a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet.
Hillary Clinton. Need I say more?
Remember, Barack Obama has spoken out in terms of “redistributive justice” (”spread the wealth”) and considered it a shame that the Warren Court, which is the most liberal court in American history, did not engage in wealth redistribution! He likely thinks that he now has a “green light” to begin reshaping the federal judiciary to reflect his own far-left beliefs. Based on his recent appointments to the Justice Department, President Obama will probably name a Supreme Court nominee who will embrace an extremely liberal judicial philosophy — UNLESS we can intervene in the Senate BEFORE that happens!

We CAN stop Barack Obama from getting his choice of an extreme liberal judge passed easily through the U.S. Senate. But it’s going to take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of messages, POURING into all of these Senators’ offices, to ensure we AT LEAST end up with a more “moderate” justice to replace Souter. IF WE DON’T DO THIS… here’s what we are looking at in the near future (courtesy of the Committee for Justice):
Top Ten Things to Expect from an Obama Supreme Court:
#10 expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences
#9 creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning
#8 expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations
#7 prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools
#6 banning the death penalty
#5 requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights
#4 creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs
#3 stripping “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance
#2 eroding property rights
#1 ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage
This is a LIVING NIGHTMARE that we CAN avoid — IF we take action RIGHT NOW! Americans across the country need to DEMAND that the Senate apply the same scrutiny for Obama’s appointees as Bush’s appointees — and to take Obama’s own words to heart, that “meaningful advice and consent includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record.”

Together, WE CAN STOP A RADICAL LIBERAL NOMINEE FROM BEING CONFIRMED! Take action today!

Sincerely,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation

P.S. In explaining his vote against Chief Justice John Roberts’ nomination, Obama stated that deciding the “truly difficult” cases requires resort to “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In short, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

Translation: lawless judicial activism.

Appointing a radical leftist to the Court — someone who believes social activism trumps the Constitution, like all of the top candidates so far believe — could forever change what our country looks like. We CANNOT let that happen — let’s take action NOW! We need to let every U.S. Senator know that we will NOT sit idly by while a radical nominee “sails through” the Senate!

United States Justice Foundation
PO Box 131637
Dept Code 2342
Houston, TX 77219-1637″

https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_souter/?a=2342

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.

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