Tweet
Report: Case At Supreme Court Targets Article II Presidential Eligibility Enforcement
Birther Report
1/26/2015
Excerpt:
As reported here earlier this month a case out of California involving two former presidential candidates and Obama's constitutional ineligibility was appealed at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Richard Winger @ Ballot Access News further reports:
Interesting the CA S.O.S. had no problem removing other candidates off the ballot for eligibility concerns.
WND published an extensive report on the case, also reminding readers about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation findings into Obama's identity documents. Constitutional scholar and attorney Herb Titus of the William J. Olson P.C. law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation filed the appeal so I encourage you to read the full petition.
Here's an excerpt via Bob Unruh @ WND:
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01...t-targets.html
Birther Report
1/26/2015
Excerpt:
As reported here earlier this month a case out of California involving two former presidential candidates and Obama's constitutional ineligibility was appealed at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Richard Winger @ Ballot Access News further reports:
U.S. Supreme Court Again Asked to Rule on Whether States Must Check Presidential Candidate Eligibility Before Putting Them on Ballots
On January 13, 2015, two individuals who had previously run for President filed a petition for cert with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule that California election officials have a constitutional duty to investigate the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates before listing them on the ballot. The two individuals who filed the case are John Albert Dummett, Jr., and Edward C. Noonan. Dummett had declared for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and is also seeking the nomination in 2016. He lives in California. Edward C. Noonan, another Californian, had sought the presidential nomination of the American Independent Party in 2012. The case is Dummett v Padilla, 14-826.
The cert petition takes pains to say that the case is not about President Obama, and that the issue of presidential constitutional qualifications is unsettled law that the Court should settle for the sake of future elections. California’s Secretary of State kept some minor party presidential candidates off the 2012 presidential primary ballots because of constitutional qualification concerns, yet refused to investigate the qualifications of some major party presidential candidates in both 2008 and 2012. The problem for lawsuits like this one is that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to reject electoral votes cast for ineligible presidential candidates. Page 26 of the cert petition says, “After a general election has occurred, it is unrealistic to expect that objections will be lodged by Members of Congress based on the constitutional eligibility of a candidate.” [...] Ballot Access News.
On January 13, 2015, two individuals who had previously run for President filed a petition for cert with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule that California election officials have a constitutional duty to investigate the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates before listing them on the ballot. The two individuals who filed the case are John Albert Dummett, Jr., and Edward C. Noonan. Dummett had declared for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and is also seeking the nomination in 2016. He lives in California. Edward C. Noonan, another Californian, had sought the presidential nomination of the American Independent Party in 2012. The case is Dummett v Padilla, 14-826.
The cert petition takes pains to say that the case is not about President Obama, and that the issue of presidential constitutional qualifications is unsettled law that the Court should settle for the sake of future elections. California’s Secretary of State kept some minor party presidential candidates off the 2012 presidential primary ballots because of constitutional qualification concerns, yet refused to investigate the qualifications of some major party presidential candidates in both 2008 and 2012. The problem for lawsuits like this one is that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to reject electoral votes cast for ineligible presidential candidates. Page 26 of the cert petition says, “After a general election has occurred, it is unrealistic to expect that objections will be lodged by Members of Congress based on the constitutional eligibility of a candidate.” [...] Ballot Access News.
Interesting the CA S.O.S. had no problem removing other candidates off the ballot for eligibility concerns.
WND published an extensive report on the case, also reminding readers about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigation findings into Obama's identity documents. Constitutional scholar and attorney Herb Titus of the William J. Olson P.C. law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation filed the appeal so I encourage you to read the full petition.
Here's an excerpt via Bob Unruh @ WND:
ELIGIBILITY NIPPING AT OBAMA'S HEELS AGAIN
[...]
They argue that the U.S. Constitution imposes on the states an obligation to “ensure that each state’s electoral votes are cast for a person who, if elected, is eligible.”
“This court does have the responsibility and the duty to ensure that state legislatures such as California’s do not abdicate their constitutional role in ensuring that their state’s electoral votes are cast for a candidate qualified to serve,” the petition explains.
Here’s where Obama comes into the case.
“In 2012, Petitioner Dummett was a write-in candidate for president of the United States on the California election ballot. In the same year, Petitioner Noonan was the American Independent Party’s declared presidential candidate. Each filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Superior Court, Sacramento County, seeking an order that California secretary of state require all presidential candidates to provide proof of their eligibility for the office … before placing their names of the official state ballot.”
That would have included Obama.
They argued a law requiring the secretary of state to put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot would be unconstitutional.
But the California judges shrugged, more or less said “So what?” and dismissed the case.
They cited the previous adjudication of a lawsuit brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes and others over Obama’s eligibility in 2008, which found that the verification of eligibility “is better left to Congress and the political parties.”
That ruling said: “The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each [political] party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections.”
But the petition explains the founders “built a constitutional fence to keep Congress out of presidential elections, barring representatives and senators from serving as electors, and limiting Congress’s powers to specifying the day of the election, to counting the votes of the Electoral College, and to providing for an order of succession to the presidency.”
That, the petition explains, contradicts what the California courts have concluded.
“That Congress was not empowered to enforce Article II, Section, 1, Clause 5 does not mean, however, that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement is legally unenforceable. Having committed the presidential selection process to the several state legislatures under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the Constitution anticipates that each state will enforce the federal eligibility requirement,” the petition explains.
“Thus, in California – as it would be true in the other 49 states – enforcement of the citizenship requirement would best be performed before an election by the state’s chief election official’s control over the official state ballot, ensuring it contained only the names of eligible presidential candidates.”
The petition says such questions are “profoundly important” and if not resolved “will render the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the U.S. Constitution a dead letter.” [...] WND.
[...]
They argue that the U.S. Constitution imposes on the states an obligation to “ensure that each state’s electoral votes are cast for a person who, if elected, is eligible.”
“This court does have the responsibility and the duty to ensure that state legislatures such as California’s do not abdicate their constitutional role in ensuring that their state’s electoral votes are cast for a candidate qualified to serve,” the petition explains.
Here’s where Obama comes into the case.
“In 2012, Petitioner Dummett was a write-in candidate for president of the United States on the California election ballot. In the same year, Petitioner Noonan was the American Independent Party’s declared presidential candidate. Each filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Superior Court, Sacramento County, seeking an order that California secretary of state require all presidential candidates to provide proof of their eligibility for the office … before placing their names of the official state ballot.”
That would have included Obama.
They argued a law requiring the secretary of state to put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot would be unconstitutional.
But the California judges shrugged, more or less said “So what?” and dismissed the case.
They cited the previous adjudication of a lawsuit brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes and others over Obama’s eligibility in 2008, which found that the verification of eligibility “is better left to Congress and the political parties.”
That ruling said: “The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each [political] party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections.”
But the petition explains the founders “built a constitutional fence to keep Congress out of presidential elections, barring representatives and senators from serving as electors, and limiting Congress’s powers to specifying the day of the election, to counting the votes of the Electoral College, and to providing for an order of succession to the presidency.”
That, the petition explains, contradicts what the California courts have concluded.
“That Congress was not empowered to enforce Article II, Section, 1, Clause 5 does not mean, however, that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement is legally unenforceable. Having committed the presidential selection process to the several state legislatures under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the Constitution anticipates that each state will enforce the federal eligibility requirement,” the petition explains.
“Thus, in California – as it would be true in the other 49 states – enforcement of the citizenship requirement would best be performed before an election by the state’s chief election official’s control over the official state ballot, ensuring it contained only the names of eligible presidential candidates.”
The petition says such questions are “profoundly important” and if not resolved “will render the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the U.S. Constitution a dead letter.” [...] WND.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01...t-targets.html